probinson added inline comments. ================ Comment at: include/clang/Basic/AttrDocs.td:2371 @@ +2370,3 @@ + +Not all targets support this attribute. ELF targets support this attribute when using binutils v2.20.1 or higher and glibc v2.11.1 or higher. Non-ELF targets currently do not support this attribute. + }]; ---------------- joerg wrote: > probinson wrote: > > echristo wrote: > > > rjmccall wrote: > > > > echristo wrote: > > > > > Probably better to say linux fwiw and not ELF. > > > > The validation code in Sema is checking for an ELF target. If the > > > > restriction is more precise than that, then we should make a TargetInfo > > > > callback. Do the BSDs and other ELF targets not use binutils/glibc? > > > We should make a TargetInfo callback. BSDs and other ELF targets aren't > > > guaranteed to use binutils/glibc (some of them have even switched to llvm > > > already) - and I don't know what the state of ifunc support on those > > > architectures is. > > Hear hear. PS4 is ELF but we don't use glibc. > The attribute is not Linux specific, so ELF is a reasonable first > approximation. Most BSDs have some ifunc support at least. I'm not in favor > of doing any checks beyond ELF -- even on Linux the availability of working > ifunc support depends on other factors like whether the binary is dynamically > linked. What's the failure mode if the target doesn't actually support it?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15524 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
