https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103223
--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #4) > (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #0) ... > > Martin, I wonder if if you would be OK with simply dropping the access when > > function signature changes (which I can prepare patch for) or do you want to > > dive into updating it? > > I would be OK with it but I don't think people who invested the energy > into these new security warnings would. I replied earlier on gcc-patches: I've always intended the access attribute to eventually benefit optimization so please feel free (and encouraged :) to use it for that purpose. The idea behind it was not just to catch bugs but also to enable optimizations based on the expectation that those bugs will have been fixed. (This has to be done carefully since the attribute is also implicitly added in contexts where relying on it wouldn't correct for optimization; the attirbute API makes it possible to distinguish these cases.) By dropping the attribute in IPA passes we would not only give up on detecting the bugs the IPA transformations expose but also on the optimization opportunities they might open up.
