haberman added a comment. I think I misunderstood @yamt's comment in https://reviews.llvm.org/D147714#4446780. I take back what I wrote above.
I agree that `[[clang::nonportable_musttail]]` is a nicer semantic, and the restrictions around the existing `[[clang:musttail]]` don't seem to buy us very much, since they are not universal enough to give a true assurance. If someone could land a change to both LLVM and Clang to change the existing attribute, I would have no objection. But I have no idea what is involved in landing a backend (LLVM) change of that magnitude, especially since it would touch all the arch-specific backends. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D147714/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D147714 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
