hfinkel added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D37436#869467, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D37436#869462, @hfinkel wrote: > > > I think that I misunderstood your concern. Let me see if I can summarize > > your position: You believe that, when GCC implements this syntax in C, they > > will audit their attributes and not support all of their existing `gnu::` > > attributes in C. You only want us to support these when we know what that > > list will be (which we don't yet). Is that correct? > > > Yes, that is correct. Okay. A large fraction of the number of attributes we'll want to use are going to fall into this category (because Clang doesn't have its own attributes, but copied GCC's, for many things). I don't think we'll get good implementation feedback until we have this figured out. If we can't sync with GCC soon, I suggest just making a reasonable guess. My first choice would be to just allowing everything, and then we can see what people found to be useful and why. Our experience here can also provide feedback to GCC (and we can always update late if needed - it is still an experimental feature). https://reviews.llvm.org/D37436 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
