From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4145 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2015 19:28:49 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 4089 invoked by uid 48); 31 Jan 2015 19:28:45 -0000 From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/64883] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++*/all_attributes.cc (test for excess errors) on x86_64-apple-darwin14 Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 19:28:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: 2015-01/txt/msg03647.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4) > hmm .. so cdefs.h does indeed use __attribute__((no return)) and > __attribute__((deprecated)). > > (although both are still valid by GCC documentation) It's valid but the point is that "noreturn" is not a reserved name in any C or POSIX standard, nor in any C++ standard before C++11, so users can reasonably expect to be able to define a macro with that name and not get problems. In order to support such valid usr code system headers should avoid using that name, and should use the __noreturn__ form that is not a valid macro name for users to define. The point of the new test is to ensure libstdc++ itself doesn't contain this kind of bug ... but it fails because darwin has the bug, even though the libstdc++ headers no longer have it. > What about a fixincludes? (not familiar with what level of stuff is feasible > there). I think this could be solved with fixincludes, but that seems like something for stage 1. For now I might just adjust the test to stop it failing.