nickdesaulniers added a comment. In D104342#2831738 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104342#2831738>, @dblaikie wrote:
>> In D104342#2831717 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D104342#2831717>, @dblaikie >> wrote: >> >>> Probably worth at least writing up the risk/instability in the docs for the >>> warning (in clang) and attribute (in llvm). (don't mind if that's in this >>> patch or a follow-up). I would think https://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#wframe-larger-than would be an appropriate place to document this for `-Wframe-larger-than=`, but it seems this whole page is generated via TableGen. It's not clear to me how we could insert such a note. Langref changes: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104736. > At least then we could probably say it's an ODR violation (the two function > definitions would be not the same if the user wrote the attribute differently > for two definitions of the inline function in two different translation > units) to have the function declared with different values for the attribute > within the same program (so you could still compile two different files (that > include a common header with a common function with the attribute specified > there) with different values for the command line flag - because the function > would get a consistent attribute value for the warning) - and then the linker > could actually reject it on mismatch. But with the attribute currently coming > from the command line, that's not feasible. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D104342/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D104342 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
