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

Reply via email to