philnik added a comment. In D122874#3422263 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122874#3422263>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> I'm not opposed, but this does muddy the waters about the target-specific > nature of the attribute. Currently, the semantic attribute cannot be used > outside of Itanium ABI targets, so it doesn't work on Windows (and we don't > want it to -- Microsoft hasn't picked their ABI for the standard attribute > and we want to avoid ABI breaks). But should we pick an ABI for the GNU > attribute on Windows and just assume that Microsoft gets no say in the ABI > for that because it's not their vendor extension? Or, if we disallow the GNU > spelling on Windows because we want it to match the ABI of the standard > attribute, does it actually help libc++ to expose the GNU spelling? > > Also, the change is missing test coverage and a release note. The best option for libc++ would probably be having the same ABI for `__atrribute__((no_unique_address))` and `[[msvc::no_unique_address]]` on Windows. We already have code that uses `[[no_unique_address]]`/`[[msvc::no_unique_address]]` but clang-cl currently supports none of them, so there will be an ABI break if we declare these things stable before clang-cl has implemented one of these (although we don't //really// care about ABI stability on Windows AFAICT). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122874/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122874 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
