This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch i386,c,c++]: PR/12171 - calling convention omitted in error message
- From: Kai Tietz <ktietz70 at googlemail dot com>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:08:37 +0100
- Subject: Re: [patch i386,c,c++]: PR/12171 - calling convention omitted in error message
- References: <AANLkTi=WqqzyfhVYYhsz96jNjQqeALq+LjTordVs90Ew@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimRHU5u6oZ3n9-8LuierC8V-ECqGx+kENmRHvJY@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1012231219080.14174@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <AANLkTinaZSNCOOjk4rU5M8FTn-BAt84VyzNCZoSrp6OA@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimxao3i4x8xj2T=H2o+mxhz+_CParivB7OHsndE@mail.gmail.com> <4D239ECC.7020604@redhat.com> <AANLkTimKVpNA9GTL=MCKBTMbEbUmEi8Hcs=sUT4L5z-p@mail.gmail.com> <4D822ACE.6020204@redhat.com>
2011/3/17 Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>:
> On 03/17/2011 04:46 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>
>> PING, ok for 4.7?
>
> Did you have a response to my comment below?
>
>> 2011/1/4 Jason Merrill<jason@redhat.com>:
>>>
>>> On 01/01/2011 01:07 PM, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, as here no further agreement was found, I post here the
>>>> alternative suggested by Joseph. I am open-minded which approach will
>>>> be chosen. I just want to fix this long pending issue.
>>>> I split up this patch in two parts. The first simply extends the
>>>> struct attribute_spec by new member 'on_diagnostic' and extends the
>>>> the uses of this structure by this new field. This new member
>>>> specifies if the attribute shall be show on diagnostic output, or not.
>>>
>>> This seems like a reasonable approach, but I'd prefer to describe/name
>>> the
>>> field as indicating that the attribute affects type compatibility (since
>>> that's why we want to see the attribute in diagnostics), and making the
>>> default comp_type_attributes use that information.
>
>
I thought to use here instead of on_diagnostic (which is IMHO fine too
as it indicates for now only that attribute shall be displayed on
diagnostics) "affects_abi". I think it makes sense to keep that name
as short as possible.
Regards,
Kai