http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60915
Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #0)
> First, while this is not the correct syntax, it seems natural
> enough that I've written it several times by mistake now.
> Is there any chance it could be blessed?
It looks like it. Quoting from
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Attribute-Syntax.html#Attribute-Syntax: "An
attribute specifier list may, in future, be permitted to appear after the
declarator in a function definition (before any old-style parameter
declarations or the function body)."
> Second, I think the diagnostic could be improved. For example
> it could mention that an attribute is not valid in this position
> on a definition, and suggest an alternative.
Yep. The following (untested) patch should bring hopefully better error
message; do you agree with the wording?
--- a/gcc/c/c-parser.c
+++ b/gcc/c/c-parser.c
@@ -1688,7 +1688,19 @@ c_parser_declaration_or_fndef (c_parser *parser, bool
fndef_ok,
if (c_parser_next_token_is_keyword (parser, RID_ASM))
asm_name = c_parser_simple_asm_expr (parser);
if (c_parser_next_token_is_keyword (parser, RID_ATTRIBUTE))
- postfix_attrs = c_parser_attributes (parser);
+ {
+ postfix_attrs = c_parser_attributes (parser);
+ if (c_parser_next_token_is (parser, CPP_OPEN_BRACE))
+ {
+ /* This means there is an attribute specifier after
+ the declarator in a function definition. Provide
+ some more information for the user. */
+ error_at (here, "attributes should be specified before the "
+ "declarator in a function definition");
+ c_parser_skip_to_end_of_block_or_statement (parser);
+ return;
+ }
+ }
if (c_parser_next_token_is (parser, CPP_EQ))
{
tree d;
This would of course go away if we decide to support attribute specifier after
the declarator in a function definition.
> Third, the manual could use an example of how to do this.
Yeah, an example never hurts.
