MaskRay added a comment. In D129572#3646044 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D129572#3646044>, @erichkeane wrote:
> In D129572#3646004 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D129572#3646004>, > @nickdesaulniers wrote: > >> https://godbolt.org/z/rf16T83Kj >> >> IMO, the standards bodies focusing on standardizing attributes should >> clarify the semantics of attribute merging, _then_ compiler vendors should >> fix their compilers. > > They HAVE FWIW, by not creating attributes that have a 'merge' problem(yet). > They end up being able to be completely additive (with the exception of the > 'reason' ones like nodiscard/deprecated, at which point the standards decide > that is implementation defined IIRC). In case of a conflict, picking the first does not appear to be universal in GCC attributes. I haven't made a thorough survey, but `visibility` picks the first and `patchable_function_entry` picks the second. Someone can ask what should be the rule and which attribute behavior should be considered a bug. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D129572/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D129572 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
