aaron.ballman added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15998#324821, @mjacob wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15998#324757, @aaron.ballman wrote: > > > Can you point me to some documentation on what the semantics of this > > attribute are? For instance, how does it play with other attributes (like > > naked or dllexport), is there a reason it shouldn't apply to Objective-C > > methods, etc? > > > As it was noted earlier in this review, this attribute (as its underlying > LLVM attribute) is underspecified. We should discuss the semantics (and > whether we want to keep it in the first place) of the LLVM attribute on the > mailing list. I'm not sure how we should proceed with this patch in the > meantime, probably one of: > > 1. Mark this (Clang) attribute as tentative, and remove it in case we remove > the LLVM attribute. > 2. Close this revision and create a new patch depending on the outcome of the > discussion. > 3. Postpone (but not close) this revision. Given how relatively easy this patch is at this stage, I would recommend #2 if the LLVM side of the discussion is going to take more than a month, and #3 otherwise. http://reviews.llvm.org/D15998 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
