aaron.ballman added a comment.
Thanks for this, I plan on giving it a more thorough review when I can. But the
summary led me to a design question: why do we support multiple attribute
*specifiers* in the same pragma? I would not expect to be able to mix attribute
styles in the same pragma given that all of the individual styles allow you to
specify multiple attributes within a single specifier. e.g.,
https://godbolt.org/z/9v7r6Eanz
__declspec(deprecated, naked) void f();
__attribute__((annotate("test"), constructor(0))) void g();
[[clang::annotate("test"), gnu::constructor(0)]] void h();
What's the use case for letting someone mix and match attribute styles as in:
#pragma clang attribute push ([[clang::disable_tail_calls]]
__attribute__((annotate("test"))), apply_to = function)
and why is whitespace the correct separator as opposed to a comma-delimited
list?
(Note, I'm still thinking about whether this approach poses any actual
problems; it may be perfectly fine, but it'd help to know why we're being lax
in mixing forms and what the rationale is for whitespace separation; that's not
a common approach to lists of things in C or C++).
Also, I'd expect there to be some documentation changes along with this patch
and a release note.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D121283/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D121283
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
