erichkeane wrote: > > > We also need to figure out what to do w/ `clang::assume`, because the > > > entire situation with the two being separate attributes is a bit of a > > > mess, as @erichkeane also pointed out. That can probably be resolved > > > separately from the RFC, however—though I’m not that familiar w/ > > > `clang::assume`, so I may be wrong about this. > > > > > > Yeah, I'd really like to figure that one out a bit, but I'm still thinking > > about it. This RFC is going to be our 'first order' issue though, so if we > > can get that solved first, we can figure out whether this is something we > > need to do, or can defer. > > I’d imagine the RFC and the ensuing discussion are gonna take a bit anyway, > so we ought to have some time to think about this in the meantinme
Exactly my thoughts. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81014 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
