In D60455#1513499, @Anastasia wrote:

Design question: since you are not aware what functions are to be run on a device while parsing them, at what point do you plan to diagnose the invalid behavior from the standard C++ i.e. using function pointers in kernel code is likely to cause issues?

In D60455#1467279, @aaron.ballman wrote:

In D60455#1464324, @Fznamznon wrote:

Applied comments from @aaron.ballman and @keryell

• Introduced a C++11 and C2x style spelling in the clang namespace. I didn't find path to add two namespaces to attribute (like [[clang::sycl::device]]) so [[clang::sycl_device]] spelling is added.
• Since both attributes have spellings and possible can be used as some "standard" outlining in Clang/LLVM I added documetation.
• Added more test cases.
• As @bader mentioned sycl_device can be used to mark functions, which are called from the different translation units so I added simple handling of this attribute in Sema.

I'm confused -- I thought @bader also said "...SYCL is not supposed to expose any non-standard extensions to a user." -- these attributes are not standards based (WG21 and WG14 have nothing to say about them), so are these attributes considered "non-standard extensions" or not?

In D60455#1468386, @Fznamznon wrote:

Ok, my question is whether you are planning to duplicate the same logic as for OpenCL kernel which doesn't really seem like an ideal design choice. Is this the only difference then we can simply add an extra check for SYCL compilation mode in this template handling case. The overall interaction between OpenCL and SYCL implementation is still a very big unknown to me so it's not very easy to judge about the implementations details...

Of course, if nothing prevents us to re-use OpenCL kernel attribute for SYCL I assume it would be good idea.
But I'm thinking about the situation with https://reviews.llvm.org/D60454 . If we re-use OpenCL kernel attributes - we affected by OpenCL-related changes and OpenCL-related changes shouldn't violate SYCL semantics. Will it be usable for SYCL/OpenCL clang developers? @bader , what do you think about it?

LGTM. One minor comment.

To give more context to the question, I'd like to clarify the use case of new attributes.