From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 774F33858C60; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 02:52:56 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 774F33858C60 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1705632776; bh=S1W8slYNXNNq+5SyjkjSQDOZffis5MTZSDJ9OviTrRQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ORb1jw3gWvPGn5Ndfsuq9p07OHtWpawkyFQQ2GPNS0ndG1FYKPjczBu6j9yp0TYLF CdlkhlIg04yR5JZbhJXYgKSlbRQheK3KYABW6vBe6C4gqulYieGQL5ZoFaDiv2rxIz ASu4Zk+TdI3d9Ohnbhy0/z/5ZgEur3ILr/Lqq050= From: "sandra at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/102397] Documentation of attribute syntax does not discuss C++11 / C23 attribute syntax Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 02:52:55 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: documentation X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: sandra at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102397 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- I committed a patch a few months ago to say that the new C++/C standard attribute syntax is supported with a gnu:: prefix, so at least the originally-reported problem has already been fixed. However, all the examples still use the old syntax. Given that there is an awful lot of legacy code using the old syntax already out there, examples a= re useful in helping people grok what it means, but at some point we probably = want to encourage people to use the new syntax in new code for all the usual rea= sons why it's better to do things in a standard way, and use it also as the prim= ary form for documentation.=20=20 OTOH, I don't think we're quite there yet. Presently the manual describes = C23 support as "experimental and incomplete" and says the default C language dialect is -std=3Dgnu17. My sense is that it's not appropriate to tell use= rs to make the switch until GCC's default dialect is advanced to something based = on C23. So I'm going to leave this issue open for now instead of closing it as fixe= d, as a reminder that there is still more work to be done here a little farther down the road.=