nikic wrote:
> That's an interesting situation! I'm not sure what I'd expect the LLVM IR to
> be there. For Clang AST, we want to keep around the expression AST nodes. But
> for LLVM IR, perhaps it makes sense to drop anything without a value rather
> than mark it as undef?
No strong opinion, I think either way would be okay. Using undef has the very
slight advantage that there's still an indication that there was an argument
there, even if it doesn't have a value, so `[[clang::annotation("a", (void)1,
2)]]` and `[[clang::annotation("a", 2)]]` can be distinguished.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/105789
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
