On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 4:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 01:54:46PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> On 07/19/2018 01:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> > Both __has_attribute (indirect_return) and __has_attribute >> > (__indirect_return__) >> > work here. >> >> Applications can have >> >> #define indirect_return >> >> so the variant without underscore mangling is definitely not correct. > > Incorrect for what? glibc header? Yes. The libsanitizer use, where we > control the headers and what we define? No. > > Jakub
I am checking my testcases to show how it works. -- H.J.
