mstorsjo added a comment. In D110485#3308854 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D110485#3308854>, @mstorsjo wrote:
> To pick up the thread here again, `[[no_unique_address]]` is done and settled > in MSVC, with the slightly surprising semantics: `[[no_unique_address]]` is > accepted, without any warning (in C++20 mode), but it has no effect. (This, > not related to LLVM, but because they had shipped it in earlier versions > without having an effect, and changing that later would break things.) > `[[msvc::no_unique_address]]` does have an effect though. See > https://github.com/microsoft/STL/issues/1364#issuecomment-1034167093 for a > more authoritative source on that. > > So, separately from implementing `[[msvc::no_unique_address]]`, I think we > also should also silence the current warning about unknown attribute for the > standard `[[no_unique_address]]`, to match MSVC. Oh, also, according to https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/msvc-cpp20-and-the-std-cpp20-switch/, the plan is to change `[[no_unique_address]]` to actually have an effect the next time the compiler breaks its C++ ABI at an unknown point in the future. (This shouldn't be an issue for Clang, as we'd have to make a conscious effort to implement the new ABI whenever that happens anyway.) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D110485/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D110485 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
