From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 13B6B3858D33; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 22:34:37 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 13B6B3858D33
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1676586878;
	bh=oPxcldsALl2Vjv4B5qYwcemAsQCjU5dY8fqb4v8U0TM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=mQ8fADAN+5q7/Bk4plTe8sjrW9kuqe0/N2Ay1iHQLFateNn2zclojjImGMLHXT9Yw
	 KStKEEXO5MDYv23g//OaxzV9W+6noI+fFaTLVlcluT5fe0hp88KUNMGPLdujHoi1yq
	 BCAPymfvISYDKURjsuYcJoelEF1sfAwDLTFXt/kk=
From: "aaron at aaronballman dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/108796] Can't intermix C2x and GNU style attributes
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 22:34:37 +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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: aaron at aaronballman dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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: 
Message-ID: <bug-108796-4-rLBAVtScku@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108796-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108796-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108796

--- Comment #10 from Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman dot com> ---
One other reason for the Clang behavior that may be worth mentioning is that
this helps users who wish to migrate away from `__attribute__` and towards
`[[]]`. Many (most?) uses of attributes end up behind a macro, so the user =
may
not even be aware which syntax is being used. Consider this contrived examp=
le:
```
// LibraryHeader.h
#if SOMETHING
#define FOO_ATTR __attribute__((foo))
#define BAR_ATTR __attribute__((bar))
#define BAZ_ATTR [[lib::baz]]
#elif SOMETHING_ELSE
...
#else
#define FOO_ATTR
#define BAR_ATTR
#define BAZ_ATTR
#endif

// UserCode.c
FOO_ATTR BAR_ATTR void func(void) { ... }
```
The user reading UserCode.c has no idea what attribute syntax is being used,
nor do they probably care all that much.

Under a strict parsing model, trying to add `BAZ_ATTR` to the declaration of
`func()` requires the user to be very aware of exactly what each macro expa=
nds
to, otherwise they might get the order wrong.

With a relaxed parsing model, the user doesn't have to care. Additionally, =
the
library header can migrate `BAR_ATTR` to `[[gnu::bar]]` syntax without also
migrating `FOO_ATTR` at the same time with less fear of breaking downstream
users due to attribute ordering, so this allows for gradual migration to a
newer syntax. (It's not "no fear" because `[[]]` has strict appertainment
rules, so it's possible for some attributes to break user code when migrati=
ng
from `__attribute__` to `[[]]` due to differences in appertainment.)=