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 D36A23858D37; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:11:28 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D36A23858D37
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1708420288;
	bh=GvhhkpXS8Hju7nlK8nWT9mfavVMJYjYcems5EUo7iyI=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=pm4BN5EeKXpFuoyZr8pwEuQ8ox1JCwjhtKD4cHpckf08vhZP02D+9eMS/Z+f6iO7V
	 2BNH3950EUlBwULvLeWcr/GWJvKI3zQwcxD9jYbo8516ixz37Y4PBiUHXyYqkJejqs
	 jMV+cf8f+K4lnQxYCOgaHq66Op7dYxmZ+NaUcvzo=
From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug preprocessor/114007] gcc chokes on
 __has_cpp_attribute(clang::unsafe_buffer_usage)
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:11:28 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: preprocessor
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-114007-4-wNoHgvOhoU@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114007-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114007-4@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=3D114007

--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot U=
ni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
> --- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Is this a clang extension (handling clang::xxxxx with -std=3D < c23)?

I can't tell: I was waiting for the preprocessor maintainers to comment.

> i.e. if the header is not actually standard-conforming - perhaps there's =
time
> to get the released SDK fixed (did you raise a feedback?)

Not yet, but I mean to.  However, it's better to have a clean
understanding if the code is wrong first.=