aaron.ballman added a comment. In D70469#1776523 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D70469#1776523>, @NoQ wrote:
> It still mildly worries me that the attributes aren't truly reusable, as the > exact meaning of the attribute depends on the domain. In particular, every > domain is expected to have different approaches to error handling, i.e. a > function that creates or destroys a handle may fail to, respectively, create > or destroy the handle, but instead indicate the failure in a domain-specific > manner, eg. through magical return values or null handle or errno or whatever. > > @aaron.ballman, do you think this is a problem? Should we rather go for an > attribute name that's obviously domain-specific (eg., > `__attribute__((fuchsia_acquire_handle))`), or is it ok to re-use attributes > without re-using their exact meaning? That may be part of why I keep pushing back on this addition -- it seems like these are general purpose attributes that can be used to identify what a handle is and where a handle is obtained/released. Or these could be specific to a particular coding guideline's definition of a handle and associated semantics. If the goal is to only support a limited set of use cases, then I think something like `[[clang::fucschia_acquire_handle]]` makes more sense. If the goal is to provided general utilities for the static analyzer to reason about handles, then I think we want the more generalized names. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D70469/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D70469 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
