erichkeane wrote: > Since we didn’t bring this up in the RFC, do we have any idea as to what we > should do with `[[clang::assume]]`? > > My suggestion would be to keep the current semantics for `[[clang::assume]]` > (and `__attribute__((assume))`, but probably _not_ `[[assume]]`) iff the > argument is a string literal—mostly because a string literal would always > evaluate to `true` anyway, so there is literally nothing to be gained from > writing `[[clang::assume(string-literal)]]` anyway if we interpret it as > C++23’s `[[assume]]`.
I think your suggestion is sensible, though I'm equally as OK with just making the standard attribute ONLY spellable as `[[assume]]` (and leaving the other attribute alone). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81014 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
