erichkeane wrote:
> Yes, but the point is: these names aren't reserved but the pain can still > happen. e.g., `cdecl` is not a reserved identifier, but re-defining its > meaning can still break code in ways that could have better diagnostics: > https://godbolt.org/z/vTfWPsYj9. Though, I suppose to reduce the chattiness, > we could elect to diagnose when we see an attribute that is ill-formed due to > the macro. e.g., THIS is interesting, and I'd be much more agreeable with a patch for ALL attributes, though I think this patch stands on its own. I agree the danger is equal for both. > If we're only going to diagnose conflicts with standard attribute names, then > I can squint enough to agree. But I think that's an arbitrary limitation; we > all just agreed that this isn't about using a reserved identifier so much as > about writing a macro which will conflict with uses of attributes of the same > name. I think it is actually about BOTH. We have diagnostics that say "you're using a reserved thing", and this is a time where you are using a reserved thing, which is independently valuable. The REST (conflicting with an attribute name) is a different, yet perhaps equally/more useful (in a different way) diagnostic. IN SUMMARY: I think this proposal minus the `std` check is acceptable. I think the proposed-not-implemented warning of "you messed with an attribute name, and it is doing weird stuff" is also a very valuable, though different, check. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/106036 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
