aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/Attr.td:602
def AnalyzerNoReturn : InheritableAttr {
- let Spellings = [GNU<"analyzer_noreturn">];
+ let Spellings = [Clang<"analyzer_noreturn">];
let Documentation = [Undocumented];
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > dcoughlin wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > dcoughlin wrote:
> > > > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > > > rsmith wrote:
> > > > > > > Hmm, should the clang static analyzer reuse the `clang::`
> > > > > > > namespace, or should it get its own?
> > > > > > Good question, I don't have strong opinions on the answer here, but
> > > > > > perhaps @dcoughlin does?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we want to use a separate namespace for the analyzer, would we
> > > > > > want to use that same namespace for any clang-tidy specific
> > > > > > attributes? Or should clang-tidy get its own namespace? (Do we ever
> > > > > > plan to execute clang-tidy through the clang driver? That might
> > > > > > change our answer.)
> > > > > How would this look if we added a special namespace for the clang
> > > > > static analyzer? Would this lead to duplication (say,
> > > > > [[clang_analyzer::analyzer_noreturn]]) so that we keep the
> > > > > "analyzer_" prefix for __attribute__((analyzer_noreturn))? Or could
> > > > > we have the "analyzer_" prefix only for GNU-style attributes but not
> > > > > for C++ (for example, [[clang_analyzer::noreturn]])?
> > > > >
> > > > > As for clang-tidy, I think it probably makes sense for it to have its
> > > > > own namespace, but we should ask @alexfh.
> > > > > How would this look if we added a special namespace for the clang
> > > > > static analyzer? Would this lead to duplication (say,
> > > > > [[clang_analyzer::analyzer_noreturn]]) so that we keep the
> > > > > "analyzer_" prefix for attribute((analyzer_noreturn))? Or could we
> > > > > have the "analyzer_" prefix only for GNU-style attributes but not for
> > > > > C++ (for example, [[clang_analyzer::noreturn]])?
> > > >
> > > > We have the ability to do whatever we'd like there. Given that the
> > > > semantics are so similar to `[[noreturn]]`, I think it would be
> > > > reasonable to use `[[clang_analyzer::noreturn]]` and
> > > > `__attribute__((analyzer_noreturn))` if that's the direction you think
> > > > is best.
> > > >
> > > > > As for clang-tidy, I think it probably makes sense for it to have its
> > > > > own namespace, but we should ask @alexfh.
> > > >
> > > > I'm less enthusiastic about giving clang-tidy a vendor namespace that's
> > > > separate from the static analyzer, should the need arise. My biggest
> > > > concern there is that I would *really* like to see clang-tidy be more
> > > > tightly integrated with the clang driver (so users don't have to
> > > > manually execute a secondary tool). If that were to happen, then the
> > > > user experience would be that there are two vendor namespaces both
> > > > related to analyzer attributes.
> > > >
> > > > That said, I would also not be opposed to putting all of these
> > > > attributes under the `clang` vendor namespace and not having a separate
> > > > vendor for the analyzer or clang-tidy.
> > > I would be find with keeping all of these things under the `clang`
> > > namespace, too.
> > >
> > > That said, I do think there is some value in having a namespace for
> > > analyzer attributes separate from clang proper because the namespace
> > > would make it more clear that the attribute doesn't affect code
> > > generation.
> > I've changed this one back to the GNU spelling to give us time to decide
> > how we want to handle analyzer attributes.
> >
> > I'm not certain "does not affect codegen" is the correct measure to use for
> > this, however. We have other attributes that muddy the water, such as
> > `annotate`, or the format specifier attributes -- these don't (really)
> > impact codegen in any way, but do impact more than just the analyzer. Given
> > the integration of the analyzer with Clang (and the somewhat fluid nature
> > of what is responsible for issuing diagnostics), I think we should proceed
> > with caution on the idea of an analyzer-specific namespace.
> >
> > However, do you have a list of attributes you think might qualify as being
> > analyzer-only? I can make sure we leave those spellings alone in this patch.
> An argument against clang_tidy and clang_analyzer vendor namespaces is that
> the choice of where to implement a certain check would be connected to adding
> an attribute in one or both of these namespaces, which would complicate
> things a bit. In case both clang-tidy and static analyzer use the same
> argument, we'd need to have duplicate attributes. I definitely don't think we
> need three `noreturn` attributes, for example.
Yeah, that's basically the concern I was getting at -- it really ties our hands
on where the various checks live in a syntactic fashion, and that seems like it
doesn't help our users any. They don't usually care whether something is a
clang-tidy check vs analyzer vs compiler proper.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40625
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
