public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, joseph@codesourcery.com,
	polacek@redhat.com, jason@redhat.com, nathan@acm.org,
	richard.sandiford@arm.com
Subject: Re: [WIP RFC] Add support for keyword-based attributes
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 19:17:36 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZLGDMEi1ygeWcrJk@tucnak> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <mpt4jm6sd0d.fsf@arm.com>

On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 04:56:18PM +0100, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Summary: We'd like to be able to specify some attributes using
> keywords, rather than the traditional __attribute__ or [[...]]
> syntax.  Would that be OK?

Will defer to C/C++ maintainers, but as you mentioned, there are many
attributes which really can't be ignored and change behavior significantly.
vector_size is one of those, mode attribute another,
no_unique_address another one (changes ABI in various cases),
the OpenMP attributes (omp::directive, omp::sequence) can change
behavior if -fopenmp, etc.
One can easily error with
#ifdef __has_cpp_attribute
#if !__has_cpp_attribute (arm::whatever)
#error arm::whatever attribute unsupported
#endif
#else
#error __has_cpp_attribute unsupported
#endif
Adding keywords instead of attributes seems to be too ugly to me.

	Jakub


  reply	other threads:[~2023-07-14 17:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-07-14 15:56 Richard Sandiford
2023-07-14 17:17 ` Jakub Jelinek [this message]
2023-07-16 10:50   ` Richard Sandiford
2023-07-17 13:39     ` Jason Merrill
2023-07-17 14:06       ` Richard Sandiford
2023-07-14 21:14 ` Nathan Sidwell
2023-07-16 10:18   ` Richard Sandiford
2023-07-17  6:38 ` Richard Biener
2023-07-17  8:21   ` Richard Sandiford
2023-07-17  9:05     ` Richard Biener
2023-07-17 13:53     ` Michael Matz
2023-07-21 23:25       ` Joseph Myers
2023-08-16 10:36         ` Richard Sandiford
2023-08-16 13:22           ` Joseph Myers
2023-08-17 11:24             ` [PATCH] c: Add support for [[__extension__ ...]] Richard Sandiford
2023-08-17 17:07               ` Richard Biener
2023-08-17 18:36                 ` Richard Sandiford
2023-08-18  9:51               ` Richard Sandiford
2023-08-18 19:51                 ` Joseph Myers

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=ZLGDMEi1ygeWcrJk@tucnak \
    --to=jakub@redhat.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jason@redhat.com \
    --cc=joseph@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=nathan@acm.org \
    --cc=polacek@redhat.com \
    --cc=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).