AaronBallman wrote: > > > I did think about it more, and I think it would be more consistent to > > > support the attribute on any sort of specializable entity, including > > > functions - regardless of STL needs @AaronBallman @ldionne > > > > > > Agreed; if we're adding a custom attribute, we might as well support it in > > a general form so users can also make use of it for their needs (which may > > be different than STL needs). > > While I don't see much of a use-case for functions, I also don't see much of > a downside (assuming implementing the attribute is as simple for functions as > it is for variables and classes). Is there anything else that can be > specialized?
Classes, functions, variables Enumerations... maybe... ish?: https://godbolt.org/z/78qn1hf8d (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/template_specialization) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101469 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
