akhuang added a comment.
In D97411#2591030 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D97411#2591030>, @aaron.ballman
wrote:
> Thanks! I am still curious about the forward declare/redeclaration behavior
> and whether that is a situation that makes sense or not. I suspect this case
> may make sense (and likely already works):
>
> // Should test redeclaration behavior.
> struct [[clang::standalone_debug]] redecl;
> struct redecl {};
>
> but I'm not certain if this case makes sense:
>
> struct [[clang::standalone_debug]] S; // Does this make sense on forward
> declare that's never defined?
The purpose of the redecl being to test if the attribute still works when
there's a redeclaration? I don't know if testing just the forward declare makes
sense - I think the attribute wouldn't do anything in that case?
Oh, also, what's the difference between writing `__attribute__((attrname))` and
`[[clang::attrname]]`?
In D97411#2591047 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D97411#2591047>, @ldionne wrote:
> In D97411#2588181 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D97411#2588181>, @akhuang wrote:
>
>> @ldionne Do you think it'd be reasonable to add this debug info attribute to
>> some types in libc++? (For types that have constructors but don't call them;
>> some previous discussion in https://reviews.llvm.org/D90719).
>
> Like I said in D90719 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90719>, I think it would be
> best to fix the issue at its root and call those constructors (we must have
> UB if we use these types but never call any constructors, right?).
True, I am still planning to look into the libc++ fix, but not sure how large /
difficult that change would be. In the meantime we could do this? (And I think
it would still be nice to have the attribute, regardless of the libc++ thing).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D97411/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D97411
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
