erichkeane added a comment. Thanks for the feedback Richard! I'll look into whether instantiating the full attribute set upon creation is a possibility.
================ Comment at: include/clang/Basic/Attr.td:301 bit DuplicatesAllowedWhileMerging = 0; + // Set to true if this attribute should apply to template declarations, + // remains false if this should only be applied to the definition. ---------------- rsmith wrote: > I find this confusing -- it seems to suggest the attribute would be applied > to the template declaration, not the templated declaration. I also think that > the property we're modelling here is something more general than something > about templates -- rather, I think the property is "is this attribute only > meaningful when applied to / inherited into a defintiion?" It would also be > useful to make clear that this only applies to class templates; for function > templates, we always instantiate all the attributes with the declaration. > > Looking through our current attribute set, it looks like at least `AbiTag` > should also get this set, and maybe also `Visibility`. (Though I wonder if > there would be any problem with always instantiating the full attribute set > for a class declaration.) > (Though I wonder if there would be any problem with always instantiating the > full attribute set for a class declaration.) This is definitely a good point. It seems that just about every other usage of instantiating attributes happens right after creation, class template specialization is the lone exception it seems. If I were to simply revert most of this change, then alter my SemaTemplate.cpp changes to just call InstantiateAttrs and presumably remove the other call to InstantiateAttrs (since it results in 2 sets of attributes), would you consider that to be more acceptable? https://reviews.llvm.org/D27486 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
