From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 480CF3858D28; Sat, 18 Dec 2021 11:42:46 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 480CF3858D28
From: "egallager at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/96054] RFE: __attribute__((fatal))
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2021 11:42:46 +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: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
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-96054-4-8NBhkyuP0b@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-96054-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-96054-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2021 11:42:46 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96054

--- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to H. Peter Anvin from comment #0)
> __attribute__((error)) and __attribute__((warning)) are useful, but have,=
 in
> some places, poor semantics.

__attribute__((error)) produces an error. __attribute__((warning)) produces=
 a
warning. It seems to me that, if following this pattern of attributes being
named after the kind of diagnostic they produce, __attribute__((fatal)) oug=
ht
to produce a fatal diagnostic that terminates compilation. Having it do
something else would seem to violate expectations for me...=