AaronBallman wrote:
> There's a problem with this attribute where the declaration in a header file
> doesn't have the attribute, but the definition in the source file has. As a
> result, the attribute doesn't take effect when just the header file is
> included.
Errr, that's the behavior of basically all inheritable attributes -- the design
idea there is that the attribute is additive information that's only visible
from the declaration with the attribute onward. So I think some users will
appreciate this warning because they might not have been aware that the
attribute was not really doing much for them, but I also think some users will
be frustrated because they've done things like:
```
// Source.cpp
void func();
void foo() {
func(); // Doesn't know about the attribute, but that's intentional for
whatever reason.
}
ATTR void func();
void bar() {
func(); // Does see the attribute
}
void func() {}
void baz() {
func(); // Still sees the attribute
}
```
I could imagine this being useful for `RequiresCapability` in cases where you
only want to require the capability internally as an implementation detail, but
not make it part of the public interface of the function.
@aaronpuchert -- do you have thoughts here?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67520
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
