erichkeane wrote: > > Hm actually reopening, the metadata isn't emitted if the defnition isn't > > available [e.g. for `extern int X;` when given an annotation > > That seems like a bug (so long as the declaration is actually emitted to LLVM > IR at all). > > > @AaronBallman @erichkeane, do you have any suggestions for paths forward, > > for use cases where it is guaranteed that the attribute is valid and the > > user (or perhaps more specifically, another Clang-tool) needs to provide > > information to LLVM through Clang AST/source. > > If it's a Clang-based tool, that might open up other options. I think it > could be reasonable to have an internal-use-only Clang attribute (one with no > `Spelling` so users have no way to access it) that wraps LLVM IR attributes. > You could use `MySpecialLLVMAttr::CreateImplicit()` to create the attributes > as-needed from within the tool, rather than modifying source code and feeding > it in to the compiler. Would that perhaps be workable for you? (No idea what > @erichkeane thinks of this idea, but if we went this route, I would want a > nice comment on the attribute definition explaining why it intentionally has > no spelling so nobody comes along later and adds a spelling for it without > realizing the concerns.)
I think I'd rather fix the extern declaration issues first, I'm guessing we just didn't add it to somewhere. As far as the 'spelling-less' attribute, I'm not really sure how usable that would be, but I've done that trick in the past for a downstream. Its probably OK, though definitely something we need to make sure no one touches. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/83059 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
