erichkeane wrote: > Hi, yes the really bad choice here is by gcc to have the same name for > basically two different attributes. For the value, they also missed the > opportunity to do something sensible when moving to C++ attributes, what a > pitty. For a concrete guideline in that jungle, when (= which version) do you > expect this patch to hit distribution? Will it be in clang-18 once that is > released? Can we expect a similar feature, let's Call it > clang::deallocator_function in a future version? Thanks Jens -- Jens Gustedt > - INRIA & ICube, Strasbourg, France
It does appear that this is on track for clang 18, but it hasn't finished review yet, so I cannot promise that of course. At the moment, nothing like a `clang::deallocator_function` is proposed, so unless someone does the work to implement and propose it, we don't have a plan to do so. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/68059 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
