aaron.ballman added a comment. In D55212#2640260 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D55212#2640260>, @arichardson wrote:
> I completely forgot about this patch. @aaron.ballman are you still happy for > me to commit this? I think where we left off is that this causes a slight regression in behavior because it shrinks the list of attributes that can use `#pragma clang attribute`. From earlier: > I'm also adding Erik and Duncan to the review because they may have some more > insights into whether alloc_size is being used with #pragma clang attribute > in the wild. My feeling is: if we can't spot any uses of that feature being > used to apply alloc_size with a reasonable amount of looking for it, then we > can go ahead with this patch even if it removes support for alloc_size from > the pragma. If we get push back from the community, we can fix or revert at > that time. However, given that this is plausibly a breaking change, I'd > rather not commit to trunk until after we branch to give folks more time to > react. WDYT? I think folks will have a chance to react if we apply it to trunk now, but I am wondering if anyone's had a chance to investigate usage in the wild. @erik.pilkington or @dexonsmith, do either of you have a gut feeling? Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55212/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55212 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
