philnik added a comment. > Hmmm, I'd be more comfortable if this wasn't an ABI break for people using > the `__attribute__(())` spelling. If we wanted to surprise users with ABI > breaks, we'd just implement `[[no_unique_address]]` on Windows and break > users when Microsoft eventually supports the attribute, which is an approach > I'm rather strongly opposed to. In this case, it's a bit different because > it's a GNU-style spelling and Microsoft doesn't support that spelling at all, > so my thinking was that we could define the ABI for it and make it stable > because it's our extension. But I can see why you'd want something different > in libc++.
I'm also OK with `__attribute__((no_unique_address))` being stable. We have all these fun things behind a macro anyways currently, so nothing would prevent us from having `__attribute__((no_unique_address))` in the stable ABI and use `[[no_unique_address]]` (whenever it will be implemented) in the unstable ABI. Or just remove the macro stuff if it will be the same ABI. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122874/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122874 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
