Re: Proposed semantics for attributes in C++ (and in C?)

[Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>]

Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> I was referring to the change in extend.texi
>
> -the closing brace.  It is ignored if the content of the structure, union
> -or enumerated type is not defined in the specifier in which the
> -attribute specifier list is used---that is, in usages such as
> -@code{struct __attribute__((foo)) bar} with no following opening brace.
> +the closing brace.  The former syntax is preferred.

That passage has nothing to do with typedefs.  The change is that 
previously, if we saw

  class __attribute ((visibility (hidden))) C;

we would ignore the attribute, now we record it.

My change to the previous paragraph now seems excessive, however:

> -You may specify the @code{aligned} and @code{transparent_union}
> -attributes either in a @code{typedef} declaration or just past the
> -closing curly brace of a complete enum, struct or union type
> -@emph{definition} and the @code{packed} attribute only past the closing
> -brace of a definition.
> +You may specify type attributes either in a @code{typedef} declaration
> +or in an enum, struct or union type declaration or definition.

I didn't notice the distinction this passage was trying to make between 
packed and other attributes, just that it was an incomplete list.  In 
removing the incomplete list I also removed the useful separation.

Jason