philnik777 wrote: > > > > The MSVC FE team hasn't expressed enthusiasm for adding ugly spellings. > > > > If I learn more I'll relay that info. > > > > > > > > > Thank you for checking! Unfortunately, I think that's a reason for Clang > > > to not support it for the `msvc` vendor prefix either. > > > > > > What is the alternative? > > Can you get away with not using `[[msvc::no_unique_address]]`? If so, I'd go > that route. No. We need it to have a reasonable ABI. > If not, I'd say use the attribute with the non-ugly spelling and woe unto > anyone defining `msvc` as a macro despite that being a perfectly valid thing > for them to do. You could be "kind" and do > > ``` > #ifdef msvc > #error "Microsoft's vendor specific attribute prefix steals this identifier > from the user's namespace, please file an issue with Microsoft if you see > this diagnostic" > #endif > ``` > > or something along those lines.
This steals both `msvc` and `no_unique_address` and does that on all platforms, not just MSVC, so that's not exactly a thrilling solution. Would defining a namespace like `__clang_msvc__` be an option? libc++ only cares about Clang on MSVC targets, so it's pretty much irrelevant what MSVC does for us. Adding an alias like `[[_Clang::__no_unique_address__]]` would also work if that's more palatable. That'd have to be added to any msvc attributes libc++ cares about of course (though currently that's only `[[msvc::no_unique_address]]`). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113765 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
