rsmith accepted this revision. rsmith added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
In D56760#1368279 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56760#1368279>, @erik.pilkington wrote: > FWIW I'd prefer the __builtin_object_size spelling too, but it doesn't seem > like the GCC folks are super crazy about it to me. So it seems likely to me > that if we implement it it will just be a clang extension for at least the > medium term (if not permanently). I guess that's fine, so long as the GCC > people are aware that it would be bad to extend their builtin to use `type&4`. In the absence of a commitment from the GCC folks, I think we should use the `__builtin_dynamic_object_size` approach for now. If they later change their mind we can deprecate that spelling in favor of a flag bit. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56760/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56760 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
