From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 4AF8E3857C43; Wed, 21 Dec 2022 17:48:36 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4AF8E3857C43 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1671644916; bh=VLedAR8C0Nziis5m0FeYtKeIGJ/LzV66ysaJDlsWwH8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=vy9h/aBCLK3ZIA4WPD8cSYUpmyYfTd3WeVc/AM4Q6sfuS+Oys5Uowv7U/fajGgrIV K+mjNgwZ6PsKu4Ouo5ZbBIMDrBEV58NA7HS2/epFI7zeBJYWPbO7o/mnG4KlHA5M0K U/7MH40jGO7pTIeGA73EwsCWz+HPWbHRO3Eqo7ug= From: "pskocik at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/108194] GCC won't treat two compatible function types as compatible if any of them (or both of them) is declared _Noreturn Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2022 17:48:35 +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: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pskocik at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED 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: resolution 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=3D108194 Petr Skocik changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|INVALID |FIXED --- Comment #5 from Petr Skocik --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > Invalid as mentioned in r13-3135-gfa258f6894801a . I believe it's still a bug for pre-c2x __typeof. While it is GCC's prerogative to include _Noreturn/__attribute((noreturn)) = into the type for its own __typeof (which, BTW, I think is better design than the standardized semantics), I think two otherwise compatible function types sh= ould still remain compatible if they both either have or don't have _Noreturn/__attribute((noreturn)). But treating `_Noreturn void NR_FN_A(voi= d);`=20 as INcompatible with `_Noreturn void NR_FN_B(void);` that's just wonky, IMO= .=