aaron.ballman added a comment. In D58216#1420149 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58216#1420149>, @rafauler wrote:
> Both approaches make sense to me. I'll re-land the previous patch in favor of > gcc compatibility, since the semantics of attribute used in member functions > of class templates were first implemented in gcc. I think we should be compatible with GCC here. > @davezarzycki Heads up that this will land again. Can you change the code in > swift to use the attribute used in the declaration of the specialization, not > in the declaration of the template? (that is, if you really need the > attribute, of course). I know very little about the Swift code base. Can it compile with GCC? If it can, then I think something is missing from the test case. If it can't compile with GCC, then I'm guessing the attribute was effectively a noop before and can be removed. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58216/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58216 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
