hokein accepted this revision.
hokein added inline comments.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/ASTTests.cpp:233
+ };
+ ASSERT_THAT(DeclAttrs("X"), Each(implicitAttr()));
+ ASSERT_THAT(DeclAttrs("Y"), Contains(attrKind(attr::WarnUnusedResult)));
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> hokein wrote:
> > sorry, I'm not familiar with attributes, what is an implicit attr? It is
> > unclear to me why there is an attr for `class X`, the source code doesn't
> > have any attribute label for X (the same question for f and a)
> Right, implicit attributes are when there's nothing written in the source
> ,but something else modifies the semantics in a way that clang authors
> decided to model as an attribute (e.g. because semantics match that of an
> explicit attribute).
>
> I'm not familiar with many examples either, but a couple:
> - when targeting windows, top-level classes appear to have an implicit "type
> visibility" attribute that I guess models the difference between default
> unix/windows symbol visibility.
> - Aaron Ballman gave an example of `[[interrupt(...)]]` which also adds an
> implicit `[[used]]` attribute.
>
> The windows example was why I assert there are no explicit attributes,
> instead of that there are none at all. I've added a comment.
ah, thanks for the explanation.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D89785/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D89785
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
