On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 at 16:09, Marcin Jaczewski <marcinjaczewski86_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> pon., 24 mar 2025 o 17:07 Jonathan Wakely via Std-Proposals
> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> napisał(a):
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 at 15:56, Matheus Izvekov via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't disagree in principle with the idea of allowing more kinds of
> >> attributes, which currently ignorability rules out.
> >>
> >> But I think the status quo with vendor attributes is not very safe.
> >> Either they should be mandatory to implement, or the compiler should
> >> make it ill-formed
> >> to use an attribute it doesn't know about, which seems would be quite
> >> a breaking change.
> >
> >
> > "ill-formed" only requires a diagnostic, which can be a warning. Most
> compilers already do that for unknown attributes, and have something like
> -Werror=attributes to make it a hard error.
> >
>
> how then support portable program that use GCC, Clang, MSVC, IC and maybe
> others
> that need specific attributes form each compiler?
>


__has_cpp_attribute