public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "fw at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/110617] RFE: Add a diagnostic-only variant of nonnull attribute
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 09:10:11 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-110617-4-YYCc4UsH4S@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-110617-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110617
--- Comment #9 from Florian Weimer <fw at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #6)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> > I think a -f... option to disable the code generation effects would make
> > more sense than adding another attribute kind.
>
> Then maybe we'd just add a -D_GLIBC_NONNULL={0,1} (?) into Glibc cdefs.h
> instead. Anyway I'm already too frustrated about this so I'll not continue
> working on nonnull within Glibc headers. If you don't like this just close
> it as WONTFIX.
For those who are not following libc-alpha, glibc already disables __nonnull
during its build, so it should be totally fine to use __nonnull in installed
headers to improve diagnostics.
We have this in include/sys/cdefs.h (which augments <sys/cdefs.h>):
/* The compiler will optimize based on the knowledge the parameter is
not NULL. This will omit tests. A robust implementation cannot allow
this so when compiling glibc itself we ignore this attribute. */
# undef __nonnull
# define __nonnull(params)
We'd like the diagnostics for building glibc itself, and a new -f option would
help with that.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-11 9:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-10 18:25 [Bug middle-end/110617] New: " xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-10 18:29 ` [Bug middle-end/110617] " xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-10 18:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-10 21:27 ` alx at kernel dot org
2023-07-11 0:36 ` sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-11 7:46 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-11 8:34 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-11 8:59 ` alx at kernel dot org
2023-07-11 9:05 ` alx at kernel dot org
2023-07-11 9:10 ` fw at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2023-07-11 10:01 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-11 10:29 ` fw at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-11 10:30 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-110617-4-YYCc4UsH4S@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).