[Bug libstdc++/64883] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++*/all_attributes.cc (test for excess errors) on x86_64-apple-darwin10

[iains at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883

--- Comment #50 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #49)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #48)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #47)
> > > Can the bug be marked as resolved?
> > 
> > Reading back through the comments, I think that work-arounds were done, but
> > AFAIK neither manual updates, nor fixincludes changes were made;
> 
> Just to confirm: by the manual updates, you mean this part, right?
> 
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7)
> > 
> > (b) Section 6.33  of the current GCC manual doesn't really mention the
> > __xxxx__ versions and the examples throughout the section use undecorated
> > versions (the only example with __xxxx__ seems to be __target__). This
> > section specifically states the attributes may be identifiers or reserved
> > words.

>>> specifically this part of comment #9

"
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7)
> (a) given that the __attribute__((xyzzy)) etc. versions are in pretty wide
> use "in the wild".
> 
> (b) Section 6.33  of the current GCC manual doesn't really mention the
> __xxxx__ versions and the examples throughout the section use undecorated
> versions (the only example with __xxxx__ seems to be __target__). This
> section specifically states the attributes may be identifiers or reserved
> words.


Right, I think it's only mentioned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Function-Attributes.html

" 

Thus, if Jonathan thinks some additional documentation would be appropriate,
then yes.

> Adding "documentation" keyword.

> > ... we might implement some compatibility warning (again in the future) - or
> > perhaps at least add a note to the manual.

This was not agreed to.

===

For my part, I'll commit the "obvious" Darwin9/10 fixes (since i have patches
already) as soon as I can re-test, and in slower time look at a fixinclude
solution.