From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14540 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2013 08:07:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 14450 invoked by uid 48); 26 Feb 2013 08:07:17 -0000 From: "kcc at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug sanitizer/56454] need to rename attribute no_address_safety_analysis to no_sanitize_address Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:07:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: sanitizer X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: kcc at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg02438.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56454 --- Comment #7 from Kostya Serebryany 2013-02-26 08:07:16 UTC --- Your comment #6 explains why I did not CC gcc lists to the clang discussion. :) There are too many strong opinions on both sides and I don't want to be an instigator of a holy war. I'd rather have incompatible syntax than spend weeks in non-productive emails. Also, we are not removing the old name, we are just documenting it as deprecated. Which means that it will stay there for some number of releases.