On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Ted Kremenek<[email protected]> wrote: > Unless I'm mistaken, this breaks constructs like the following: > __attribute((malloc)) void *(*f)(); > > -Eli > > I implemented handling of this case, but I noticed that GCC actually rejects > attribute 'malloc' being applied to function pointers ("warning: 'malloc' > attribute ignored"). Should we do the same in Clang? For function > pointers, the malloc attribute really a property of the pointer type, not > the declaration, but apparently GCC doesn't even reason about that.
I think it's better to be self-consistent here over being consistent with gcc, as long as we don't break compatibility. Function attributes are confusing enough without making different attributes act differently. -Eli _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
