kristina added inline comments.
================ Comment at: test/Misc/pragma-attribute-supported-attributes-list.test:100 +// CHECK-NEXT: ObjCReturnsInnerPointer (SubjectMatchRule_objc_method, SubjectMatchRule_objc_property) +// CHECK-NEXT: ObjCRootClass (SubjectMatchRule_objc_interface) // CHECK-NEXT: ObjCRuntimeName (SubjectMatchRule_objc_interface, SubjectMatchRule_objc_protocol) ---------------- rsmith wrote: > kristina wrote: > > There is only one root class in a given runtime (ie. NSObject for objc4, or > > Object for older Apple runtimes, ObjFW also has a different root class). > > Having more than one makes no sense especially in the same lexical context > > as there are no use cases I can think of where you would have more than one > > active ObjC runtime within a process. > Thanks. Yes, this attribute probably doesn't make very much sense to use in > conjunction with the pragma. > > So, do we explicitly disallow it, or do we allow it with the expectation that > it's likely that no-one will ever want to use it? (That is, do we want to > disallow cases that are not useful, or merely cases that are not meaningful?) > I don't have a strong opinion here, but I'm mildly inclined towards allowing > the pragma on any attribute where it's meaningful, as there may be useful > uses that we just didn't think of, and it costs nothing to permit. Yes in theory it could only be used on a single interface in which case it would be perfectly valid. Otherwise when used incorrectly it would issue a diagnostic. As per your inclination of allowing it for all attributes I would say leave it allowed, as it **can** be used in a correct way. Diagnostics are sufficient enough to point out when it happens to apply the attribute to more than one interface. So given your comment, I would say leave it as allowed. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D51507 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
