On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 at 17:10, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 07/13/2018 02:53 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 at 00:04, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> The attached change set adjusts the attribute exclusion code > >> to detect and reject incompatible attributes before attribute > >> handlers are called to have a chance to make changes despite > >> the exclusions. The handlers are not run when a conflict is > >> found. > >> > >> Tested on x86_64-linux. I expected the fallout to be bigger > >> but only a handful of tests needed adjusting and the changes > >> all look like clear improvements. I.e., conflicting attributes > >> that diagnosed as being ignored really are being ignored as one > >> would expect. > >> > > > > Since you committed this patch (r262596), I've noticed regressions on > > aarch64/arm: > > g++.dg/warn/pr86453.C -std=c++11 (test for warnings, line 4) > > g++.dg/warn/pr86453.C -std=c++11 (test for excess errors) > > g++.dg/warn/pr86453.C -std=c++14 (test for warnings, line 4) > > g++.dg/warn/pr86453.C -std=c++14 (test for excess errors) > > g++.dg/warn/pr86453.C -std=c++98 (test for warnings, line 4) > > g++.dg/warn/pr86453.C -std=c++98 (test for excess errors) > > > > The log says: > > Excess errors: > > /gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/pr86453.C:4:44: warning: ignoring attribute > > 'packed' because it conflicts with attribute 'aligned' [-Wattributes] > > > > Isn't there the same message on x86_64? > > There was. The test above was added between the time I tested > my patch and the time I committed it. I adjusted it yesterday > via r262609 so the failure should be gone. >
Indeed, thanks! I reported the regression because I didn't see any comment about it on gcc-patches. Christophe > Martin
