http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56454
--- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-26 11:19:34 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > Clang accepts the old name silently. > I am not sure about "forever", > clang will probably start printing a "deprecated" warning at some point. Well, I would say get what you can, and fight the fights that you can win. So if you can get the alias, go for that first. Only after that, try to get the old name deprecated, if possible. GCC maintainers do not really care what clang does, so framing arguments in that way will get you negative feed-back. The only important arguments for GCC maintainers are: who is going to implement it and what is the benefit for gcc. That clang gives a deprecated warning is not an issue for gcc. That clang uses a different attribute is an issue of compatibility, so there is maybe an argument for adding an alias to gcc. (And for the same reasons, I agree that raising the issue in both Clang and GCC lists would have been a waste of time.)
