On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 08:56:57AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 07:27:31PM +0200, Josef Melcr wrote:
> > As for the attribute, I am honestly not too sure about what to do, as clang
> > is
> > not consistent in with its own indexing, be it with the unknown values, or
> > with
> > 'this'. I've tried to remain consistent with GCC's indexing style. I guess
> > I'll
> > leave up to you and the other maintainers to decide. I can implement clangs
> > version 1:1, put the attribute in our namespace or rename it. I don't mind
> > either way. Another option would be to patch clang to get in line with the
> > rest
> > of its attributes. It seems like the best option to me, as it would make
> > being
> > consistent way easier, but it would be problematic, as all code using this
> > attribute would need to be updated.
>
> I'll talk to C/C++ FE maintainers what they think.
No progress there so far.
Could you perhaps split the attribute side of the patch off and submit
something that only handles a few OpenMP/OpenACC builtins for now without
that attribute, instead of testing for the attribute test for specific
builtins?
If/when there is agreement on what to do with the attribute, the attribute
will be easily added (with whatever syntax is agreed on) and then the IPA
code can handle functions with that attribute next to the OpenMP/OpenACC
builtins (and ideally IFN_ASSUME).
Jakub
