From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <joseph_myers@mentor.com>
Received: from esa1.mentor.iphmx.com (esa1.mentor.iphmx.com [68.232.129.153])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8389D385782C
 for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 17:02:15 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 8389D385782C
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="5.90,293,1643702400"; d="scan'208";a="77630668"
Received: from orw-gwy-02-in.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.167])
 by esa1.mentor.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 27 Apr 2022 09:02:14 -0800
IronPort-SDR: JKbxOtYc/0A3h7JvpezUyL+azTNxxGXkoyX5Zo6xpFoA7aA5JEyQYzmLHmgNlZh+R9xtaL/NVQ
 KnxSXto/607FDtac4FnCk3PCemuaaeR3JG434Bh56ch3ntMjbPYWoo9RfMiTe/P4Jji3mum0GI
 1BryWsyVSM8jznjZ6e7JMuk2dipjPEZf2jegCQnL9hx4pkY7wmaeM9duFEZIcSNhxIVs8ky+3a
 VoUoxpNYeLmEG+B38eUqBuC09C755mxmjOhdmkNx/9OYwi6wenWycH6LjH3kvYUKwmI89/qi3f
 YnM=
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 17:02:09 +0000
From: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
X-X-Sender: jsm28@digraph.polyomino.org.uk
To: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
CC: <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFA] c-family: attribute ((aligned, mode)) [PR100545]
In-Reply-To: <20220427151957.795214-1-jason@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2204271700060.404671@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
References: <20220427151957.795214-1-jason@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (DEB 394 2020-01-19)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Originating-IP: [137.202.0.90]
X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-06.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.6) To
 svr-ies-mbx-10.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.10)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3113.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS,
 TXREP autolearn=no 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 <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-patches>,
 <mailto:gcc-patches-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 17:02:17 -0000

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:

> +      if (typedef_variant_p (type))
> +	{
> +	  /* Set up the typedef all over again.  */

This seems wrong when the typedef is just being used in another 
declaration with the mode attribute, as opposed to being defined using the 
mode attribute.  E.g. the following test is valid and accepted before the 
patch, but wrongly rejected after the patch because the typedef has had 
its type changed.

typedef int I;
int x;
I y __attribute__ ((mode(QI)));
extern I x;

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com