samitolvanen added a comment. In D122673#3443498 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122673#3443498>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> I tend to be very wary of modifying the type system with attributes -- > questions always arise of what the type system effects are of the attribute. > e.g., does it impact overload sets or template specialization? Name mangling? > If it doesn't have type system impacts... why does it need to be in the type > system at all? This also matters because adding more bits to types can have > unintended side effects like accidentally reducing the depth of template > instantiations we can process (because of the extra memory pressure). So > while I'm not certain what you and @pcc talked about, it does seem like an > approach at least worth thinking about, especially because this patch needs > to bump the size of `Type`. Sure, I agree. I'll take a look at the built-in approach. Do you have any thoughts about reusing `nocf_check`, which is essentially identical to this proposed attribute, just currently limited to x86 CET? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122673/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122673 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
