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 E9FD4385700F; Tue, 16 May 2023 20:08:38 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E9FD4385700F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1684267718;
	bh=9peIZZyLnyFu3q2Bb3dCPz6+AOXwtrbpkc0Kzw1ree8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=vie4bRHUAeBlbLDM7dCsllJLk6QrzvB505lQFLWCrj8jfGpMRhobz4yjngem/wjIl
	 bnbMGZP99INEb1ayjgnYwcADWf9Tjrqdv569byDUoED2QnvDG4wo9C88eIWszeVnjQ
	 GM+0Al34EAxE/Km0bTs21AcNfpQzSwYz/lhXleFI=
From: "iains at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/109877] Support for clang-style attributes is needed to
 parse Darwin SDK headers properly
Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 20:08:38 +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: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109877-4-p4zpxjnuIk@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109877-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109877-4@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=3D109877

--- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > This style of attributes is bad. Because the GNU style attribute is just
> > token(expression,expression,expression) it seems odd that they added th=
ese
> > kind of attributes without thinking maybe it would be rejected somewhere
> > else.
>=20
> To be precise, some attributes have the first argument an identifier rath=
er
> than expression (e.g. mode/format/cleanup/access attribute).
> So, the macOS as first argument is acceptable, but not the second one.

As far as I can tell (and what my current implementation does) is to say th=
at
everything in the inner parentheses cam be lexed/parsed in a manner specifi=
c to
the attribute ID.

so in:
 availability(zzzz) the zzzz is parsed specifically to "availability"
and presumably:
 another_attr(yyyy) could have a different set of rules.

As noted, we [at least, all I have spoken to] agree that this is bad (in
respect of deviating from GNU style without any other mechanism to
differentiate).  However, once stuff is in the wild....=