From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BF833858D3C for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 17:39:18 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 4BF833858D3C Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-293-8gtpoP0pNmOtr6hrMiIrCQ-1; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 13:39:16 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 8gtpoP0pNmOtr6hrMiIrCQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF740192780C for ; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 17:39:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.192.34]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FE5619D9D; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 17:39:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 18KHd0fi3174249 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 20 Sep 2021 19:39:00 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.16.1/8.16.1/Submit) id 18KHcxZC3174246; Mon, 20 Sep 2021 19:38:59 +0200 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 19:38:59 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Marek Polacek Cc: GCC Patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] attribs: Implement -Wno-attributes=vendor::attr [PR101940] Message-ID: <20210920173859.GK304296@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20210920170658.28014-1-polacek@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210920170658.28014-1-polacek@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 17:39:20 -0000 On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 01:06:58PM -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote: Not a review, just a few nits: I think it would be useful to clarify that -Wno-attributes=list doesn't actually imply -Wno-attributes > --- a/gcc/common.opt > +++ b/gcc/common.opt > @@ -88,6 +88,9 @@ void *flag_instrument_functions_exclude_functions > Variable > void *flag_instrument_functions_exclude_files > > +Variable > +void *flag_ignored_attributes > + > ; Generic structs (e.g. templates not explicitly specialized) > ; may not have a compilation unit associated with them, and so > ; may need to be treated differently from ordinary structs. > @@ -546,6 +549,10 @@ Wattributes > Common Var(warn_attributes) Init(1) Warning > Warn about inappropriate attribute usage. > > +Wattributes= > +Common Joined > +Do not warn about specified attributes. > + So, wouldn't be this better specified as Wno-attributes= Common Joined RejectNegative (not sure if RejectNegative is actually needed for an option starting with Wno- )? > +/* { dg-additional-options "-std=c++11" { target c++ } } */ > +/* { dg-additional-options "-Wno-attributes=company::,yoyodyne::attr" } */ > +/* { dg-additional-options "-Wno-attributes=c1::attr,c1::attr,c1::__attr__" } */ > +/* { dg-additional-options "-Wno-attributes=clang" } */ > +/* { dg-additional-options "-Wno-attributes=c2::,c2::attr" } */ > +/* { dg-additional-options "-Wno-attributes=c3::attr,c3::" } */ > +/* { dg-additional-options "-Wno-attributes=x::," } */ Should the above be accepted (I mean trailing , ?) What does that mean? > +/* { dg-additional-options "-Wno-attributes=yoyodyne::attr_new" } */ > +/* { dg-additional-options "-Wno-attributes=c4::__attr__" } */ When writing __attr__, does that imply we won't warn about both c4::attr and c4::__attr__ (and __c4__::attr and __c4__::__attr__) like it would when writing -Wno-attributes=c4::attr ? Jakub