From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from esa2.mentor.iphmx.com (esa2.mentor.iphmx.com [68.232.141.98]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DB3A3855587 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2023 23:25:49 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 5DB3A3855587 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codesourcery.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mentor.com X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.01,222,1684828800"; d="scan'208";a="13939535" Received: from orw-gwy-02-in.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.167]) by esa2.mentor.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2023 15:25:44 -0800 IronPort-SDR: VIPtQrn/o4BJdyKAVlun9Vq13GbtYUqUtre3UvTUaZxPDYHSdaj1vyp0gK8VZ3oTNwJA2U1cQ8 Y2YXHMAP3kh7Va9ixysCwShsbjfL+b89qNfZQO4jWKB3e2AgfmRIshgbuy1cB3xFVtqJNXJ7at 3muSNq2RlKW9NnuzmHCzlvKr4tqzMEqyvztFtkMy2It6bTsD6n5UmF6Ev5BbJpTSdD33tsC0dU WSpoc3Za1NSYtZCnVBcxlmfOASmLYPsjqtWgORxIGcANswEtp8gxYbhi3zP9DEat/2sP0XAb5Y Dxg= Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 23:25:40 +0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Michael Matz CC: Richard Sandiford , Richard Biener , , , , Subject: Re: [WIP RFC] Add support for keyword-based attributes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4ea49f3-954f-e4aa-1721-8258f1bb5f75@codesourcery.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Originating-IP: [137.202.0.90] X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-12.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.12) To svr-ies-mbx-10.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.10) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3105.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Mon, 17 Jul 2023, Michael Matz via Gcc-patches wrote: > So, essentially you want unignorable attributes, right? Then implement > exactly that: add one new keyword "__known_attribute__" (invent a better > name, maybe :) ), semantics exactly as with __attribute__ (including using > the same underlying lists in our data structures), with only one single > deviation: instead of the warning you give an error for unhandled > attributes. Done. Assuming you also want the better-defined standard rules about how [[]] attributes appertain to particular entities, rather than the different __attribute__ rules, that would suggest something like [[!some::attr]] for the case of attributes that can't be ignored but otherwise are handled like standard [[]] attributes. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com