From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-501699-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 58493 invoked by alias); 27 May 2019 07:16:26 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 58441 invoked by uid 89); 27 May 2019 07:16:26 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=
X-HELO: mx1.suse.de
Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx1.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 May 2019 07:16:24 +0000
Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254])	by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3687BAEBF;	Mon, 27 May 2019 07:16:22 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 07:26:00 -0000
From: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
To: Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@gmail.com>
cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, msebor@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR c/86407 - Add option to ignore fndecl attributes on function pointers
In-Reply-To: <CAMMLpeRK8h4_N-vRrBCD1ypjdeRK0HuGgCUU_EgQtq8fvCC_zw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.20.1905270914540.10704@zhemvz.fhfr.qr>
References: <20190524035737.14107-1-alexhenrie24@gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.20.1905241000280.10704@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <CAMMLpeQZdG26pjY4uu-k1HjHWfw9tDHYBmTupwfeQ21GA8XXpg@mail.gmail.com> <3E00946D-43BA-42AA-A7C5-58F958FABFDE@suse.de> <CAMMLpeRK8h4_N-vRrBCD1ypjdeRK0HuGgCUU_EgQtq8fvCC_zw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LSU 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-SW-Source: 2019-05/txt/msg01752.txt.bz2

On Sat, 25 May 2019, Alex Henrie wrote:

> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 12:34 AM Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > On May 24, 2019 5:49:38 PM GMT+02:00, Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >As far as I can tell, "fndecl" is a misnomer: these attributes are
> > >more accurately called "function definition attributes", i.e.
> > >attributes that affect the assembly code of the function but do not
> > >affect its calling convention.
> >
> > Yes. The others are attributes also applicable to function types to properly support attributed indirect calls.
> 
> I'm happy to rename ix86_handle_fndecl_attribute to
> ix86_handle_fndef_attribute then. Should I do that in this patch or a
> separate patch?

I don't see this fixes anything.  It's pretty well-know that attributes
affecting call semantics have to be accepted both at type and decl
position and that they should be added to the type attributes.
Attributes that only affect code generation for the function itself
should be added to decl attributes and do not necessarily need to
be accepted in type position.