+/* Handle the "copy" attribute by copying the set of attributes
+ from the symbol referenced by ARGS to the declaration of *NODE. */
+
+static tree
+handle_copy_attribute (tree *node, tree name, tree args,
+ int flags, bool *no_add_attrs)
+{
+ /* Break cycles in circular references. */
+ static hash_set<tree> attr_copy_visited;
Does this really need to be static?
The variable was intended to break cycles in recursive calls to
the function for self-referential applications of attribute copy
but since the attribute itself is not applied (anymore) such cycles
can no longer form. I have removed the variable and simplified
the handlers (there are tests to verify this works correctly).
diff --git a/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
index cfe6a8e..8ffb0cd 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index 5c95f67..c027acd 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
[ ... ]
+
+In C++, the warning is issued when an explicitcspecialization of a primary
"explicitcspecialization" ? :-)
Fixed.
Looks pretty good. There's the explicit specialization nit and the
static vs auto question for attr_copy_visited. Otherwise it's OK.
Thanks. I've retested a revision with the changes discussed here
and committed it as r265980.
Martin
