From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 73D21386EC42; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 20:41:26 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 73D21386EC42 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1712090486; bh=9/H50O29nT4e9dnoFtFrg35RCXRqkv/fNoOwbkH0FuA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=G3ekR45jsla7ZI7unIl5koSSoIrVk+Y++mDAhJl1rBBfbqB/Tpfrjtyn5iSblsZ7j IV95MB+GA/lBEgPfSLSJZrifEVMECTwZBK7zHHOlE8bulBTh6itCj/JLh0CUFvSUQN JiMpIWyRjKgjmyn1sYNiPBCLolUy6nb6iRVZHFYA= From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/111067] g++.dg/opt/icf{1,2,3}.C tests fail on darwin Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 20:41:26 +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: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW 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: 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=3D111067 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7) > So I am actually asking=20 > - if the extension actually has any useful meaning? For non-darwin, yes, it requests the storage of two initializer lists to be merged (see the commit msg for r14-1500-g4d935f52b0d5c0). > - if it is an extension it probably should be only available in gnu:: ? It's a standard attribute. The extension is allowing it to be placed on variables that aren't non-static data members. If you spell it gnu::no_unique_address then it's a completely different attribute (and in t= hat case I'd suggest an alternative name, because we don't want to recreate the msvc::no_unique_address debacle, or even give the impression of doing so!)=