From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-412550-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26574 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2013 22:45:48 -0000
Received: (qmail 26499 invoked by uid 48); 17 Jan 2013 22:45:28 -0000
From: "xinliangli at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/55742] [4.8 regression] __attribute__ in class function declaration cause "prototype does not match" errors.
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 22:45:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: xinliangli at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-55742-4-Eed41SI0do@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-55742-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-55742-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2013-01/txt/msg01669.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742

--- Comment #30 from davidxl <xinliangli at gmail dot com> 2013-01-17 22:45:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:02 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
> <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
> >
> > --- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-01-16 16:02:35 UTC ---
> > The actual merging of target attribute isn't that important, what would be more
> > important is that other attributes are merged together in that case and the
> > decls treated as the same thing.
> >
> > Anyway, with target("any") attribute, what would happen for
> > void foo () __attribute__((target ("avx")));
> > void foo () __attribute__((target ("any")));
> 
> IMHO the re-declaration with a different target attribute should be an error.

This can be a clean way to handle declarations. The definition should have
either 'default' attribute or a matching target attribute.

> A proper "forward" declaration for a function with MV applied shouldn't have
> any target attribute.

What does this sentence mean?


David