bogner wrote: > As a general comment, your approach of just checking for the existence of the > binding attribute may not in itself be sufficient. Consider this PR: > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135287/files There is a potential > case where the binding attribute has a slot = -1, signifying that it is > implicit. This PR may need to account for Helena's, because if a binding > attribute can exist and also signify implicitness, the proper condition to > check for explicitness assuming attribute existence is probably: > Attr->isImplicit();
I agree, but I think changes to how we check if these are implicit will have to wait for that PR and/or the PRs that actually implement implicit bindings and come along with them. In its current form, there is no `isImplicit` to check, so we're doing all that we can. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135909 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
