From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14452 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2018 23:44:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 14442 invoked by uid 89); 5 Feb 2018 23:44:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=opportunity X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:44:33 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384:256) id 1eiqR4-00028C-Sd from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 15:44:30 -0800 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.87) by svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 23:44:27 +0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eiqR0-000283-WA; Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:44:27 +0000 Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:44:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Martin Sebor CC: Jason Merrill , Gcc Patch List Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] avoid applying attributes to explicit specializations (PR 83871) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) To svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) X-SW-Source: 2018-02/txt/msg00199.txt.bz2 On Sun, 4 Feb 2018, Martin Sebor wrote: > We've talked about (2) in the past (bug 71463) but this seems > like an opportunity to revisit it and (hopefully) make a change > to treat these the same as all other function attributes rather > than type attributes. Besides fixing the wrong code bugs and I'd say that actually more attributes should be made into type attributes where they are currently function attributes - anything that affects optimizations or warnings in the caller based on properties of the callee is something where it's meaningful to have a pointer-to-function where the pointed-to function type has that property. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com