On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 11:50 AM, H.J Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > hjl.tools added a comment. > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22045#508648, @aaron.ballman wrote: > >> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22045#508644, @hjl.tools wrote: >> >> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22045#506996, @joerg wrote: >> > >> > > For what it is worth, this certainly seems to be misnamed. By nature, if >> > > it doesn't preserve at least the stack pointer, there is no way to >> > > recover on return, right? >> > >> > >> > This is the best name we came up with and has been implemented in GCC. >> >> >> What version of GCC supports this attribute? I tried 6.1.0 and it is unknown >> there. > > > It is implemented in GCC 7.
Okay, that is good to know! Then the attribute should be using the GCC spelling rather than the GNU spelling. This also obviates the need for an explicit CXX11 spelling under the clang:: namespace, if our intention is for this attribute to match GCC's behavior. ~Aaron > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D22045 > > > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
