erichkeane wrote: > > I think the confusion/conflict between this and clang::assume needs to be > > figured out. These two should just be, as close as possible, spellings of > > the same thing. > > Well, apparently, `clang::assume` always takes a string and is meant for OMP > assumptions, so one solution would be to just apply `clang::assume` semantics > iff the argument is a string literal since string literals would always be > converted to `true` anyway.
Hmm... I'll have to think about this. Side note: I don't see any tests validating that these are being properly instantiated (either by AST dump or by codegen), the only template cases i see are ones where the instantiation not happening doesn't 'matter'. Also, I don't see how these are affecting calls through concepts, so I'd like to see testing for that as well (that is, how the attribute with a failure during instantiation does). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81014 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
