public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/51930] [4.7 regression] Explicitly instantiated template gets hidden visibility
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 20:49:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-51930-4-cFQM1BHFFL@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-51930-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51930
Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-01 20:47:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Author: jason
> Date: Thu Mar 1 17:52:12 2012
> New Revision: 184753
No new testcase?
+ input_location = location_of (declared_type);
+ warning (0, "attribute ignored in declaration of %q#T", declared_type);
+ warning (0, "attribute for %q#T must follow the %qs keyword",
+ declared_type, class_key_or_enum_as_string (declared_type));
+ input_location = loc;
Wouldn't it be simple and clearer to use warning_at(location) ?
And the second warning should be inform.
And given:
- if (decl_specifiers.attributes)
- warning (OPT_Wattributes,
- "attributes ignored on explicit type instantiation");
It is clear that the behavior is not equivalent. The warning before was
conditional on -Wattributes, but now it is unconditional. Was this intentional?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-01 20:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-21 11:41 [Bug c++/51930] New: " sefi@s-e-f-i.de
2012-01-21 14:23 ` [Bug c++/51930] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-21 21:16 ` [Bug c++/51930] [4.7 regression] " jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-23 18:32 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-23 21:52 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-23 21:55 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-29 14:07 ` sefi@s-e-f-i.de
2012-02-15 1:23 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-15 9:29 ` sefi@s-e-f-i.de
2012-02-15 10:15 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-15 10:55 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-15 12:02 ` sefi@s-e-f-i.de
2012-02-15 13:50 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2012-02-16 8:48 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-22 10:09 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-27 10:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-27 11:08 ` sefi@s-e-f-i.de
2012-02-27 15:04 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-27 15:21 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-01 2:39 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-01 17:53 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-01 20:49 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2012-03-01 20:54 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-05 18:09 ` jason 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-51930-4-cFQM1BHFFL@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).