Izaron added a comment. In D144334#4141646 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D144334#4141646>, @erichkeane wrote:
> I'm on the fence as to whether we want to implement this feature at all. As > was discussed extensively during the EWG meetings on this: multiple > implementers are against this attribute for a variety of reasons, and at > least 1 other implementer has stated they might 'implementer veto' this. I don't quite understand how it works. The feature has been approved for C++2b, but it should have not been approved if there were concerns from implementers. A friend of mine got his proposal rejected because MSVC said they are unable to support the new feature. But it seems like not the case with the `assume` attribute. Could you please elaborate: if you decide to not implement this feature, you will kind of revoke the proposal or just deliberately do not support a part of C++2b in Clang? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D144334/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D144334 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
