dblaikie added a comment. In D111199#3093448 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D111199#3093448>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> Attribute bits look good to me, but I'd appreciate if @dblaikie could weigh > in on whether he thinks the CodeGen changes are fine. My concern there is > around whether the changes to function signatures to accept a `TypeLoc` are > reasonable or not. Thanks for pulling me in here - appreciate all the reviewing you've been doing on this whole series & glad to be pulled in anywhere you think's helpful. Ah, yeah, I see what you mean - that does seem sort of unfortunate. Is it possible these attributes could only appear on typedefs and they'd be more readily carried through that without needing extra typeloc tracking? (sorry for not having read back through the rest of the review - which may've started there and ended up here as a more general form of the attribute?) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D111199/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D111199 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
