[patch i386,c,c++]: PR/12171 - calling convention omitted in error message

[Jason Merrill]

On 01/05/2011 06:10 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Jason Merrill<jason@redhat.com>  wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Isn't the decl vs. type attribute flag what is used for this?  If an attribute
> can be only applied to types then it (might?) affects type compatibility,
> if it can be applied to decls as well then it certainly won't.

Not all type flags affect compatibility; for instance, "format".

Jason