Hello Martin,
The new testcase Wattribute-alias.c fails on targets without ifunc
support (e.g. aarch64-none-elf cross-build).
It seems that just adding a directive `{ dg-require-ifunc "" }` to the
test file changes the test to unsupported instead of having a fail.
I don't know much about this patch so I don't know if the non-ifunc
checks would still be useful on such targets.
Would the simple change be OK? or would it be best to split the test
file into multiple parts to still run the other checks?
Regards,
Matthew
On 09/11/18 17:33, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> +/* Handle the "copy" attribute by copying the set of attributes
>>> + from the symbol referenced by ARGS to the declaration of *NODE. */
>>> +
>>> +static tree
>>> +handle_copy_attribute (tree *node, tree name, tree args,
>>> + int flags, bool *no_add_attrs)
>>> +{
>>> + /* Break cycles in circular references. */
>>> + static hash_set<tree> attr_copy_visited;
>> Does this really need to be static?
>
> The variable was intended to break cycles in recursive calls to
> the function for self-referential applications of attribute copy
> but since the attribute itself is not applied (anymore) such cycles
> can no longer form. I have removed the variable and simplified
> the handlers (there are tests to verify this works correctly).
>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
>>> index cfe6a8e..8ffb0cd 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi
>>> +++ b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
>>> diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
>>> index 5c95f67..c027acd 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
>>> +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>> +
>>> +In C++, the warning is issued when an explicitcspecialization of a
>>> primary
>> "explicitcspecialization" ? :-)
>>
>
> Fixed.
>
>>
>> Looks pretty good. There's the explicit specialization nit and the
>> static vs auto question for attr_copy_visited. Otherwise it's OK.
>
> Thanks. I've retested a revision with the changes discussed here
> and committed it as r265980.
>
> Martin
