https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7) > (a) given that the __attribute__((xyzzy)) etc. versions are in pretty wide > use "in the wild". > > (b) Section 6.33 of the current GCC manual doesn't really mention the > __xxxx__ versions and the examples throughout the section use undecorated > versions (the only example with __xxxx__ seems to be __target__). This > section specifically states the attributes may be identifiers or reserved > words. Right, I think it's only mentioned at https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Function-Attributes.html > ... we might implement some compatibility warning (again in the future) - or > perhaps at least add a note to the manual. I'm not sure a waning is appropriate. Users are welcome to use the non-uglified attributes, it's their responsibility to ensure their own attributes don't clash with their own macros. (In reply to howarth from comment #8) > Certainly getting the current GCC manual in sync with this new restriction > and emitting a clear warning in the gcc 5.0 release compiler would get the > issue more traction with upstream developers. There is no new restriction. The failing test is only intended to check that libstdc++ is consistent about using the uglified attributes. Anything outside libstdc++ can do whatever it wants. IMHO the C standard library headers should use the reserved names, but the GCC manual is not the right place to document how to implement the C standard library.
