[PATCH] D19081: Add LLVMGetAttrKindIDInContext in the C API in order to facilitate migration away from LLVMAttribute

[whitequark via llvm-commits]

whitequark added a comment.

> Will target dependent attributes be covered by the API (like "no-sse")? Or is it only the regular attributes?


Well they really should be.

> The advantage of enums is that they are self documenting, the disadvantage is that ffi bindings can get stale enums. (if we have rules that we can't reuse old values) the only issue is that can arise is that ffi bindings can used deprecated enum values.


Not just that. In practice, bindings don't bother exporting the full list of attributes, and neither do the people who add attributes bother to update the C API, and this causes a lot of pain when writing frontends that need a new attribute because I need at least two new patches, temporarily fork LLVM and LLVM bindings, etc. Enums are just bad for things that change at all frequently. They're ugly enough for ValueKind, which changes far less.


http://reviews.llvm.org/D19081