jyknight added a comment. In D148700#4418767 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D148700#4418767>, @rsandifo-arm wrote:
> Hi @jyknight , @rsmith > > Do you have any more thoughts on the above? Quick version is: > > 1. Is it OK to have `[[…]]` attributes in the `arm` namespace that affect > semantics? I'd say the consensus is that it is. > 2. Is it OK to raise an error for unrecognised attributes in the `arm` > namespace (for a measure of future-proofing)? We already have the -Wunknown-attributes warning enabled by default (as a warning). Is it vital for it to be a default-on error (for arm::*), instead of a default-on warning? ISTM that the default-on warning ought to suffice, but I'm happy to hear people's experience of this going badly in their experience. :) > Given the differing views, I'm unsure whether to revert the series and do (1) > (and possibly (2)), or whether to leave things as they are. I don't really feel strongly about the syntax chosen, but given that you've mentioned a fair number of upsides to using normal `[[arm::...]]` attributes, I'd say it may indeed be worthwhile to go back to that. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148700/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D148700 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
