dcoughlin added a subscriber: alexfh.
dcoughlin added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/Attr.td:602
def AnalyzerNoReturn : InheritableAttr {
- let Spellings = [GNU<"analyzer_noreturn">];
+ let Spellings = [Clang<"analyzer_noreturn">];
let Documentation = [Undocumented];
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> rsmith wrote:
> > Hmm, should the clang static analyzer reuse the `clang::` namespace, or
> > should it get its own?
> Good question, I don't have strong opinions on the answer here, but perhaps
> @dcoughlin does?
>
> If we want to use a separate namespace for the analyzer, would we want to use
> that same namespace for any clang-tidy specific attributes? Or should
> clang-tidy get its own namespace? (Do we ever plan to execute clang-tidy
> through the clang driver? That might change our answer.)
How would this look if we added a special namespace for the clang static
analyzer? Would this lead to duplication (say,
[[clang_analyzer::analyzer_noreturn]]) so that we keep the "analyzer_" prefix
for __attribute__((analyzer_noreturn))? Or could we have the "analyzer_" prefix
only for GNU-style attributes but not for C++ (for example,
[[clang_analyzer::noreturn]])?
As for clang-tidy, I think it probably makes sense for it to have its own
namespace, but we should ask @alexfh.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40625
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
