rjmccall added a comment. In D140868#4027480 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D140868#4027480>, @MaskRay wrote:
> I am not a C language lawyer :) I wonder what else should be done to move > this patch forward. > The https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/59792 has got some traction > and has been added a candidate for the next 15.x patch release > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/milestone/18 We should test that this doesn't affect functions declared using the standard C attributes. Otherwise, I think we can go forward with this change. Aaron, does that seem reasonable to you? For better or worse, the different spellings of `noreturn` do have different behavior already, since the standard spellings aren't supposed to be type-affecting. And I feel like the suggested rule here is clearly correct if we have the flexibility to set it on our own. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D140868/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D140868 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
