erichkeane wrote: > > Of the three, I lean towards 3 actually, I think that is perhaps the BEST > > idea, and is perhaps supported by our existing infrastructure already (if > > you have Attr.td set its targets right?). I'd like to see what Aaron has to > > say, but I THINK that is my preference baring any concerns. > > Yeah, I agree that that is probably the best option (though we should > probably still update the diagnostic I mentioned, because it’s not obvious > imo that `[[assume]]` != `[[clang::assume]]`).
Agreed, I think an improved diag there is a good idea. > Also, `[[assume]]` is currently called `AssumeAttr`, whereas > `[[clang::assume]]` is called `AssumptionAttr`, so we might want to rename > one of those (e.g. the former to `CXXAssumeAttr` or the latter to > `ClangAssumptionAttr` or sth like that) because that sounds like a possible > source of confusion in the future... > > That and the `[[clang::assume]]` docs should probably point out that this is > _not_ C++23’s `[[assume]]` if they don’t do that already. I might lean toward CXXAssumeAttr and OMPAssumeAttr ? 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
