dcoughlin added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/Attr.td:602
def AnalyzerNoReturn : InheritableAttr {
- let Spellings = [GNU<"analyzer_noreturn">];
+ let Spellings = [Clang<"analyzer_noreturn">];
let Documentation = [Undocumented];
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> dcoughlin wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > rsmith wrote:
> > > > Hmm, should the clang static analyzer reuse the `clang::` namespace, or
> > > > should it get its own?
> > > Good question, I don't have strong opinions on the answer here, but
> > > perhaps @dcoughlin does?
> > >
> > > If we want to use a separate namespace for the analyzer, would we want to
> > > use that same namespace for any clang-tidy specific attributes? Or should
> > > clang-tidy get its own namespace? (Do we ever plan to execute clang-tidy
> > > through the clang driver? That might change our answer.)
> > How would this look if we added a special namespace for the clang static
> > analyzer? Would this lead to duplication (say,
> > [[clang_analyzer::analyzer_noreturn]]) so that we keep the "analyzer_"
> > prefix for __attribute__((analyzer_noreturn))? Or could we have the
> > "analyzer_" prefix only for GNU-style attributes but not for C++ (for
> > example, [[clang_analyzer::noreturn]])?
> >
> > As for clang-tidy, I think it probably makes sense for it to have its own
> > namespace, but we should ask @alexfh.
> > How would this look if we added a special namespace for the clang static
> > analyzer? Would this lead to duplication (say,
> > [[clang_analyzer::analyzer_noreturn]]) so that we keep the "analyzer_"
> > prefix for attribute((analyzer_noreturn))? Or could we have the "analyzer_"
> > prefix only for GNU-style attributes but not for C++ (for example,
> > [[clang_analyzer::noreturn]])?
>
> We have the ability to do whatever we'd like there. Given that the semantics
> are so similar to `[[noreturn]]`, I think it would be reasonable to use
> `[[clang_analyzer::noreturn]]` and `__attribute__((analyzer_noreturn))` if
> that's the direction you think is best.
>
> > As for clang-tidy, I think it probably makes sense for it to have its own
> > namespace, but we should ask @alexfh.
>
> I'm less enthusiastic about giving clang-tidy a vendor namespace that's
> separate from the static analyzer, should the need arise. My biggest concern
> there is that I would *really* like to see clang-tidy be more tightly
> integrated with the clang driver (so users don't have to manually execute a
> secondary tool). If that were to happen, then the user experience would be
> that there are two vendor namespaces both related to analyzer attributes.
>
> That said, I would also not be opposed to putting all of these attributes
> under the `clang` vendor namespace and not having a separate vendor for the
> analyzer or clang-tidy.
I would be find with keeping all of these things under the `clang` namespace,
too.
That said, I do think there is some value in having a namespace for analyzer
attributes separate from clang proper because the namespace would make it more
clear that the attribute doesn't affect code generation.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40625
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
