aaron.ballman requested changes to this revision. aaron.ballman added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed.
In D110485#3026629 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D110485#3026629>, @rjmccall wrote: > MSVC gets to chose the ABI rules for their platform. It is not Clang policy > to pick ABI rules and then break them later. > > If you'd like to contribute an implementation of > `[[msvc::no_unique_address]]` that matches MSVC's ABI, that would be > welcome. I don't know, maybe that's as simple as making it use the existing > implementation; @zygoloid might know better. But "add an ABI feature ahead > of the platform owner and then fix the ABI problems later" is not how we do > things. I concur with John. In D110485#3028553 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D110485#3028553>, @expnkx wrote: > I cannot find out where to add attribute that starts with msvc::xxxxx. To Attr.td; you'd give a new spelling, like: `CXX11<"msvc", "no_unique_address">` > I am just applying this "potential" patch to the clang upstream. In the > future we can just remove TargetItaniumCXXABI attr in the clang table gen > file without worrying about too much. So it is a "noop". > > So this patch changes nothing but it makes us be convenient to fix it in the > future. This patch is changing behavior and cannot be landed as-is. I don't think we should do anything in this area unless it's an implementation of `[[msvc::no_unique_address]]` that is ABI compatible with the Microsoft implementation. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D110485/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D110485 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
