public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/33911] attribute deprecated vs. templates
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 14:18:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-33911-4-XGnVcfWs14@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-33911-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33911

--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The comment below is from Richard Smith. I don't think we do have the same
problem for abi_tag, so Jason must have solved this problem there.

--------

I was amazed to discover that clang has the *exact* same bug as gcc:

template<typename T> struct S {} __attribute__((deprecated));
S<int> s1; // no warning
S<int> s2; // warning, deprecated

Moving the attribute earlier makes no difference to either compiler.

And... I can tell you exactly why this is happening: when we see the use of
S<int>, we instantiate the declaration. That does not instantiate attributes.
The use is checked, it's not marked deprecated, so no warning occurs.

Then we perform initialization of s1. That triggers the instantiation of the
definition and the attribute. But we don't use the name S<int> here; that
already happened earlier.

Finally, we use S<int> again in the declaration of s2, and now we have both a
use and an attribute, so we warn.

I'm not entirely sure what the right resolution is here. Maybe some attributes
should be instantiated when we instantiate a class template specialization
declaration, rather than delaying all of them until we instantiate the
definition. I expect that your abi_tag attribute has the same bug, by the way,
and if you never trigger the instantiation of the definition of
basic_string<T>, then that type won't get an ABI tag. =)


  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-11-11 14:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <bug-33911-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2012-12-01 22:12 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2012-12-02  8:16 ` victor at enise dot org
2012-12-02  9:57 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2012-12-02 12:39 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-10-01  0:06 ` eraman at google dot com
2013-10-03 17:39 ` eraman at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-11 14:18 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2014-11-11 14:25 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-11 17:52 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-12 10:33 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-13  3:06 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-11-17 22:10 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-03-02 15:51 ` ldionne.2 at gmail dot com
2007-10-26 15:08 [Bug c++/33911] New: " bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-10-26 16:08 ` [Bug c++/33911] " pcarlini at suse dot de
2007-12-20 14:33 ` niemayer at isg dot de
2008-01-04 22:57 ` jason at redhat dot com
2008-05-02 21:41 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-12-28  3:25 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-11-05 23:09 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot 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-33911-4-XGnVcfWs14@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).