arphaman added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30009#705699, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D30009#705649, @efriedma wrote: > > > Looking over the most recent version, I'm happy with the general semantics > > of push with apply_only_to. I'm not sure I see the point of apply_to: it > > doesn't allow the user to do anything that can't be done with > > apply_only_to. Also, if the apply_to list for an attribute ever changes, > > it becomes impossible to write code which supports both versions of the > > compiler. > This is a good point that I haven't considered. > You bring up a really good point about compiler versioning -- it would be > pretty awful to force the user to use #ifs to deal with that. > > I believe apply_to is somewhat useful so that the user knows what an > attribute actually appertains to, and get a diagnostic if we ever extend the > list of things their particular attribute can appertain to so they are forced > to decide whether they want that new behavior or not. > > @arphaman, what do you think about the idea of only having apply_to with the > same semantics as you currently have for apply_only_to? I would be ok with that. We could merge `apply_to` and `apply_only_to` into a single `apply_to` matching rule set specifier (it would behave like `apply_only_to`). I guess one downside would be is that it will become harder to fill out all the match rules if one wants to apply an attribute to all possible declarations. I suppose the attribute documentation generator can be updated to include the full match rule set for each attribute instead of just yes/no in the `#pragma clang attribute` documentation column. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D30009 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
