https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81679
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #4) > On Wed, 2 Aug 2017, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > If there is a concern that the attribute could be used on declarations in > > existing code that the optimization might break, then the attribute could be > > specified differently (e.g., as a function attribute with an argument number > > indicating which argument is unused; that would also differentiate it from > > the > > existing function attribute). Or the same feature could be provided under a > > different attribute. The main idea here is the ability to express the > > notion > > that a function doesn't modify an object via its (non-const) pointer > > argument. > > The name for the feature is secondary (though "unused" is obviously a nice > > fit). > > The "unused" attribute always means "possibly unused, don't warn if > actually unused". It would be a mistake to make it mean anything else. ...so close this as WONTFIX then?
