erichkeane added a comment. In D144334#4142462 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D144334#4142462>, @Izaron wrote:
> 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. You're preaching to the choir on that one. Two of the implementers (including our code owner, and MSVC reps) stated a distinct dislike for this, and that they were considering implementer veto on it. > A friend of mine got his proposal rejected because MSVC said they are unable > to support the new feature. "Unable to support" and "dont want to support" are different, but EWG is nothing if not consistently inconsistent. > 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? Just deliberately not support a part of C++2b. Implementers have veto'ed features in the past exactly that way. 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
