[clang] [Clang] Add [[clang::no_specializations]] (PR #101469)

[Erich Keane via cfe-commits]

================
@@ -1212,6 +1212,14 @@ static void handlePreferredName(Sema &S, Decl *D, const ParsedAttr &AL) {
         << TT->getDecl();
 }
 
+static void handleNoSpecializations(Sema &S, Decl *D, const ParsedAttr &AL) {
+  StringRef Message;
+  if (AL.getNumArgs() != 0)
+    S.checkStringLiteralArgumentAttr(AL, 0, Message);
----------------
erichkeane wrote:

Yes, it is inconsistent, but not really an issue. About 1/2 the uses have some additional processing that needs to happen, so the early return is sensible, though perhaps they could better reflect the code in that case.

But the other 1/2 could very well have their return removed with no negative effects (and likely, an improvement, as the error-AST would better reflect the syntax).

The only reason NOT to do a mass-changeover is that we're not sure which were written in a way to not properly expect an empty string here in codegen/etc.

That said, a bug report marked 'good-first-issue' for someone to go through the uses and ensure we are tolerant of them would be a good idea.  @shafik: mind filing one?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101469