Oops, I sent this to the wrong list. Apologies.
Sean
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Adding an attribute to clang
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:58:51 -0600
From: Sean Hunt <rideau3 at gmail.com>
To: cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
On 06/17/2010 07:22 PM, Nelson Elhage wrote:> Hi Sean,
>
> I've been working on a patch to implement -finstrument-functions in
> clang, which includes a no_instrument_function attribute. (See [1] for
> my earlier patch to LLVM, which Chris Lattner recommended pushing
> entirely into clang). When I updated today, I found a conflict with your
> attribute work, and saw the comment about not touching Attr.td without
> contacting you.
>
> What's the plan with regard to adding support for new attributes while
> your work is in progress? I'd ideally like to be able to send my patch
> for review before the end of the summer -- do you have a sense of when
> you'll be unfreezing Attr.td? Or is it sufficiently stable enough that
> adding a new trivial attribute should be fine?
>
> (As an aside, having written a patch to add an attribute, +1 to cleaning
> up the attribute system, and of course I'm not suggesting this should
in
> any way block your work. I mostly just want to have a sense of whether I
> should put this aside in favor of other projects for a while)
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Nelson Elhage
Adding a new attribute should be fine; that comment was direct at
someone interested in changing the schema. Please leave the DoNotEmit
bit set. I'll update the comment to reflect this.
Thanks,
Sean
