erichkeane wrote: >>I'm still thinking my way through a non_storable attribute, but on its face, >>it seems like it could be overkill. I suspect (but haven't measured!) that >>there is way more code out there that maps enumerations to bit-fields that >>expect all members of the enumeration to be possible to store than there is >>code that has a sentinel value not expected to be used. I kind of wonder if >>the correct answer to those more exceptional situations is "don't use this >>attribute, you're not doing a straight mapping in this case." Would it >>perhaps make sense to handle the common path first, see what usage experience >>finds in the wild, and then consider non_storable in the future?
This is my feeling on it too, and I think the 'proper' way ahead. I am unopposed to a `non_storable` attribute, but I'd want to see more uses where it would be needed. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/69104 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
