public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.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 07:57:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-56454-4-rMdwcuCCsP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-56454-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56454
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-26 07:57:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Hm... Ok...
> Although there is a risk that this way we may never reach a decision.
> Is there a precedent of solving issues this way?
>
> How about __has_feature, by the way?
_has_feature is a useless feature considering preprocessed macros exists. Maybe
the clang folks want an unified way of finding if a feature exists but that is
up to clang. We don't. Also the attribute renaming is a different story and
really should never happen once it is out in the wild which it is now. That is
the point I am trying to make once you have it out there it should stay even if
it is a bad name. We have bad names for options and only change them in the
rare case (-Wconversion was the only rare case that comes to mind).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-26 7:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-26 7:05 [Bug sanitizer/56454] New: " kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-26 7:15 ` [Bug sanitizer/56454] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-26 7:19 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-26 7:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-26 7:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-26 7:39 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-26 7:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2013-02-26 8:07 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-26 8:41 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-26 8:46 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-26 11:20 ` manu at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-28 12:02 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-28 12:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-28 12:36 ` kcc at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-28 21:23 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-01-20 12:15 ` y.gribov at samsung dot com
2014-01-20 13:26 ` kcc 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-56454-4-rMdwcuCCsP@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).