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 BB46B38582BD; Tue, 11 Jul 2023 10:01:31 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BB46B38582BD
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1689069691;
	bh=GHK3p1c+GvqR3Q+wjhI0WBI5IRA/xGnYeHaI2w+QhJs=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=cHVCnkadNFm84eYvr2tP61HVI6HAiUQt5mT3qhaUsVm9Tqeh0BOhBV4ptO4h2KltA
	 +I6LbHgq8wuXre7SeRkWY8pApOaBcaFmEuso1mjxxFrqQtYzNY20tNTwrM5aiGzgFC
	 12xqCY0FoQVI7RmwWzwzn1qz27SvLTSXM0l8zo5Q=
From: "xry111 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 10:01:31 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
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-110617-4-ltsWH0149r@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110617-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110617-4@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=3D110617

--- Comment #10 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #9)
> (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 m=
ake
> > > more sense than adding another attribute kind.
> >=20
> > Then maybe we'd just add a -D_GLIBC_NONNULL=3D{0,1} (?) into Glibc cdef=
s.h
> > instead.  Anyway I'm already too frustrated about this so I'll not cont=
inue
> > working on nonnull within Glibc headers.  If you don't like this just c=
lose
> > it as WONTFIX.
>=20
> For those who are not following libc-alpha, glibc already disables __nonn=
ull
> during its build, so it should be totally fine to use __nonnull in instal=
led
> headers to improve diagnostics.

But Zack's reason against using __nonnull is __nonnull may cause unwanted
optimizations to *the user code*.=