erichkeane added a comment. > For my purposes, it would be fine, and maybe even desirable, for the proposed > annotate_type to have the same limitations as _Nonnull. > > Are you saying that a) this would not be acceptable for a more > general-purpose attribute such as a putative annotate_type, or even that b) > the behavior of _Nonnull itself is seen as undesirable and should be changed > if possible?
Yes and Maybe? The non-type-modifying type attributes we have are here for compatibility with GCC/MSVC, but are, IMO, a complete mistake otherwise. The strange/obnoxious behavior of them disappearing off of something as soon as they are looked at funny makes them so non-intuitive that I see them as harmful. Something as general as an 'annotate_type' would, IMO, need to be held to an even higher standard than our normal type attributes due to its nature. And I don't see how a type attribute with the behaviors you require as being both intuitive and working in the C++ type system. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D114235/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D114235 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
