erichkeane added a comment. In D139028#4150761 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139028#4150761>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> One thing that might also help is to split this into a few stages. 1) Add the > new general functionality, 2) Replacing the existing implementation of > keyword attributes with the new functionality where possible, 3) Add new > attributes using the new functionality. It seems to me that we should be able > to replace a bunch of our existing keyword attributes with the newer > generalized approach (I'm thinking about ones like the calling convention > attributes specifically, but we've got others as well), and that will help us > prove the design as well as simplify the compiler implementation. WDYT? I think this is an absolute necessity for me. I also find myself wondering if the 3 'keyword' types of attributes hold their own weight individually. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D139028/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D139028 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
