[PATCH] D148700: [clang] Add support for “regular” keyword attributes

Tue Jun 13 13:11:29 PDT 2023

jyknight added a comment.

In D148700#4418767 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D148700#4418767>, @rsandifo-arm wrote:

> Hi @jyknight , @rsmith
>
> Do you have any more thoughts on the above?  Quick version is:
>
> 1. Is it OK to have `[[…]]` attributes in the `arm` namespace that affect semantics?

I'd say the consensus is that it is.

> 2. Is it OK to raise an error for unrecognised attributes in the `arm` namespace (for a measure of future-proofing)?

We already have the -Wunknown-attributes warning enabled by default (as a warning). Is it vital for it to be a default-on error (for arm::*), instead of a default-on warning? ISTM that the default-on warning ought to suffice, but I'm happy to hear people's experience of this going badly in their experience. :)

> Given the differing views, I'm unsure whether to revert the series and do (1) (and possibly (2)), or whether to leave things as they are.

I don't really feel strongly about the syntax chosen, but given that you've mentioned a fair number of upsides to using normal `[[arm::...]]` attributes, I'd say it may indeed be worthwhile to go back to that.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D148700/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D148700