> Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 01:37:12 +0100
> From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com>
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 00:54:33 +0100
> Hans-Peter Nilsson <h...@axis.com> wrote:
>
> > > Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 00:23:36 +0100
> > > From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com>
> >
> > > On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 17:02:31 +0100
> > > Hans-Peter Nilsson via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <h...@axis.com>
> > > > > Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2023 16:36:46 +0100
> > > >
> > > > > ... this is what I intend to commit later
> > > > > today, just keeping the added comment as brief as
> > > > > reasonable:
> > > >
> > > > Except I see the hook for errno magic took care of
> > > > gcc.dg/analyzer/flex-without-call-summaries.c so I'll add
> > > > that to the list of handled "FAIL"s in the commit log. Yay.
> > >
> > > But in the end it means we'll have to keep _[_]+errno{,_location} 'til
> > > we bump requirements or 10, 20 years or the end of the universe,
> > > doesn't it.
> > > Way fancy.
> >
> > Not sure I see your point? The (other) identifiers are already there.
>
> I'm certainly not opposed to this partiular identifier, no.
>
> >
> > (And you do realize that this is in the analyzer part of gcc, right?)
>
> And yes, i'm well aware this is "just" the analyzer -- which is unfair
> to state like that and does not mean to imply any inferiority --
> particular in this spot.
(Your statement and values; it can be read as you putting
that as mine, which I hope was not intended.) My point is
that the presence of those identifiers does not affects an
ABI or code-generating parts of gcc. All the identifiers
are present for all targets - for all invocation of the
analyzer. If that passes a nuisance threshold, it seems it
can be changed easily, say by moving it to a target-hook by
someone who cares deeply enough.
> Just let's ditch any specialcased identifier which was superseded
> reliably ASAP?
I'm certainly not opposed to *that*
brgds, H-P
