On 10/31/18 10:27 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Ping: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/msg01473.html
>
> With the C++ bits approved I'm still looking for a review/approval
> of the remaining changes: the C front end and the shared c-family
> handling of the new built-in.
I thought I acked those with just a couple minor doc nits:
> diff --git a/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
> index 8ffb0cd..dcf4747 100644
> --- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi
> +++ b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
> @@ -2649,8 +2649,9 @@ explicit @code{externally_visible} attributes
are still necessary.
> @cindex @code{flatten} function attribute
> Generally, inlining into a function is limited. For a function
marked with
> this attribute, every call inside this function is inlined, if possible.
> -Whether the function itself is considered for inlining depends on its
size and
> -the current inlining parameters.
> +Functions declared with attribute @code{noinline} and similar are not
> +inlined. Whether the function itself is considered for inlining depends
> +on its size and the current inlining parameters.
Guessing this was from another doc patch that I think has already been
approved
> @@ -11726,6 +11728,33 @@ check its compatibility with @var{size}.
>
> @end deftypefn
>
> +@deftypefn {Built-in Function} bool __builtin_has_attribute
(@var{type-or-expression}, @var{attribute})
> +The @code{__builtin_has_attribute} function evaluates to an integer
constant
> +expression equal to @code{true} if the symbol or type referenced by
> +the @var{type-or-expression} argument has been declared with
> +the @var{attribute} referenced by the second argument. Neither argument
> +is valuated. The @var{type-or-expression} argument is subject to the
same
s/valuated/evaluated/ ?
Did the implementation change significantly requiring another review
iteration?
jeff
