erichkeane wrote: > > Hmm... I'm not sure this meets our requirements for inclusion as an > > attribute. The semantics of this are pretty opaque, no obvious significant > > motivation/applicability in the base languages, etc. There doesn't seem to > > be any reasonable use case that I can see. > > do you mean my use case is not reasonable? or it isn't well explained? or > something else?
This could be either. At the moment, I don't see the use of this to be compelling enough to be in the compiler. That said, the description of the use case is ~3 short sentences. In general, implementing LLVM attributes in Clang directly is typically not sufficient. Also, I agree with Eli, IF we do decide to do something like this, it needs to be holistically integrated/designed with the source language. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92499 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
