erichkeane wrote: > Well assume attribute is a good example of where gcc and clang disagree and > might cause issues. Gcc implemented the assume attribute just the same as the > standard one. While clang implemented before standardization and now they > differ and could cause issues. This is why I requested using clang_ here.
`assume` is an unfortunate situation, but it is also a particularly generic word (and we ended up being able to fix it fairly trouble-free). In retrospect, we should have been more picky for a vendor-extension attribute instead of the OMP version. So I'm not concerned about us being in the same situation here with `nolock/noalloc`. In the future we/GCC should be better about communicating with each-other on these, but making some attribute spellings worse isn't worth the pain. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84983 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
