https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81679
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> --- On Wed, 2 Aug 2017, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > If there is a concern that the attribute could be used on declarations in > existing code that the optimization might break, then the attribute could be > specified differently (e.g., as a function attribute with an argument number > indicating which argument is unused; that would also differentiate it from the > existing function attribute). Or the same feature could be provided under a > different attribute. The main idea here is the ability to express the notion > that a function doesn't modify an object via its (non-const) pointer > argument. > The name for the feature is secondary (though "unused" is obviously a nice > fit). The "unused" attribute always means "possibly unused, don't warn if actually unused". It would be a mistake to make it mean anything else.
