I would like to have a non-addressable keyword for non-standard functions that are not addressable.

-----Original Message-----
From: Std-Proposals <std-proposals-bounces_at_lists.isocpp.org> On Behalf Of Bo Persson via Std-Proposals
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 7:34 AM
To: std-proposals_at_lists.isocpp.org
Cc: Bo Persson <bo_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [std-proposals] Floating an idea: [[no_address]] for functions.

On 2025-03-24 at 06:32, Jan Schultke via Std-Proposals wrote:
> I like the idea in principle, but a proposal would have to figure out
> many nuanced issues.
>
> Firstly, attributes are ignorable, and perhaps, we would want a
> program to be straight up ill-formed if it takes the address of a
> function we've marked as non-addressable. I don't see a compelling
> reason to keep this an attribute. Rather, a contextual keyword like
> the following makes sense:
>
>> void f() no_address;

This seems like a place where C++ could get the wrong defaults (as usual?). Wouldn't it be better to have an "addressable" keyword for those few standard functions that are addressable?



--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals