https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
--- Comment #11 from Jonny Grant ---
As you say, in your quote from the manual, the access attribute read_only
doesn't mean there will be any access at all.
However, it doesn't seem to generate any warnings itself, maybe it is only for
the optim
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
--- Comment #10 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #8)
> > So the caveat is this issue (2). I can't use attribute nonnull due to these
> > optimizations that cannot be disable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #8)
> So the caveat is this issue (2). I can't use attribute nonnull due to these
> optimizations that cannot be disabled.
But you declare that argument cannot be null.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
--- Comment #8 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> access attribute says if it is access, then it will be that. It does not say
> it MUST be accessed. That is what nonnull is for.
>
> >I didn't want to use __attri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
access attribute says if it is access, then it will be that. It does not say it
MUST be accessed. That is what nonnull is for.
>I didn't want to use __attribute__((nonnull)) because the optimizer may use
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |INVALID
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pins
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
--- Comment #5 from Jonny Grant ---
Here is an example, no warnings during compilation.
https://godbolt.org/z/h8E7r3Wf8
#include
// Try get a build warning for nullptr dereference
__attribute__ ((access (read_only, 1, 2))) void f(char * s, si
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Grant ---
My apologies, I had understood attribute access read_only was different from
the attribute nonnull. So I filed a different report for this.
I didn't want to use __attribute__((nonnull)) because the optimizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #0)
>
> void f(const char * const str) __attribute__((access(read_only, 1)));
> void f(const char * const str)
> {
> __builtin_puts(str);
> }
>
> int main()
> {
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108893
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Isn't this the same as PR 108871 ?
Also, the access attribute does not imply the attribute nonnull; it may be
appropriate to add both attributes at the declaration of a function that
unconditionally manipu
11 matches
Mail list logo
