hubert-reinterpretcast wrote: > I think i have the same comments as others, namely I think I'd like a more > detailed description so that i understand the use cases.
I am not reading that sentiment from other reviewers. Can you explain the sort of use cases that you have in mind where further clarity is needed given the added doc section?: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/85a676732733440ada434602cac3b1da6ecf8617/clang/docs/LanguageExtensions.md?plain=1#L6513 > Even if `__attribute(used)` isn't exactly what you need, an attribute form > seems a lot more user-friendly and portable than a command line option. It is also user-friendly to not make users modify their source. For context about the friendliness of command-line options, our downstream has a lot of users that prefer them because it can be applied at the build-system level for the platform (thus avoiding any impact to other builds). > You mentioned using `__attribute__((visibility("protected"))) > __attribute__((weak))` downstream. Why not keep doing that or adding an > attribute with the same semantics? That was for another code base being migrated between compiler solutions. Even individual downstreams have different stakeholders with varying needs. > Why limit to character types? Lack of use cases? The precedent for the particular retention semantics with respect to linker GC is from `#pragma comment(copyright, ...)`, which only accepts what C calls an ordinary string literal as a payload. > And yes, if the only use case is identical to `#pragma copyright`, why both? Because, as it is, some code uses one and some uses the other. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/187986 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
