From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-442763-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 3798 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2014 00:08:21 -0000
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
Received: (qmail 3749 invoked by uid 48); 6 Feb 2014 00:08:17 -0000
From: "josh at joshtriplett dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/59850] Support sparse-style pointer address spaces (type attributes)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 00:08:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: josh at joshtriplett dot 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-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-59850-4-Ef3tWgqCFK@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-59850-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-59850-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-02/txt/msg00520.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850

--- Comment #15 from Josh Triplett <josh at joshtriplett dot org> ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #14)
> (In reply to Josh Triplett from comment #11)
> > Personally, I'd actually suggest merging the two in GCC, and always issuing
> > both sets of warnings.  I'd also suggest including the warnings in GCC's
> > -Wall, given that you'll only see them if you explicitly use an
> > address_space attribute.
> 
> My current patch adds just -Waddress-space and enables this
> warning by default -- similar to what was decided for -Wdesignated-init.
> This seems like something that might be
> discussed and changed during the patch submission though.

Given that it only applies if you use the attribute, enabling it by default
seems even better than putting it in -Wall, unless there's some fundamental
objection to that.