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.
