https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84628
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84628
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Mar 3 13:43:30 2018
New Revision: 258208
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258208=gcc=rev
Log:
Backported from mainline
2018-03-02 Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84628
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar 2 16:19:43 2018
New Revision: 258140
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258140=gcc=rev
Log:
PR ipa/84628
* expr.c (expand_expr_real_1) : Don't emit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84628
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 43533
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43533=edit
gcc8-pr84628.patch
Untested fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84628
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
deprecated
deprecated (msg)
The deprecated attribute results in a warning if the function is used anywhere
in the source file. This is useful when identifying functions that are expected
to be removed in a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84628
--- Comment #8 from Jay ---
Aha, kinda the same thing, but before or after analysis.
And this “deprecated” somewhat matches msvc - I was wondering about that but
didn’t see it.
It’d be nice to be able to customize the deprecated message but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84628
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The warning/error attributes have been added for purposes like glibc memset
inline, which does:
if (__builtin_constant_p (__len) && __len == 0
&& (!__builtin_constant_p (__ch) || __ch != 0))
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84628
--- Comment #6 from Jay ---
Misplaced comment:
But, the thing is, because optimization can remove the use of such functions,
people are now advocating that we noinline along with the attribute, which
hypothetically is unwarranted damage.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84628
--- Comment #5 from Jay ---
I know. We just noticed and were surprised. It isn't clear if this is what
users would expect or not. Warn because they wrote code that "merely looks
bad", or only if the compiler decides after analysis that it really
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84628
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jay from comment #3)
> The original case said something about "localalias" in the error, so aliases
> don't seem to address it. I can dig that up probably.
>
> Shouldn't it warn for:
> if (0)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84628
--- Comment #3 from Jay ---
The original case said something about "localalias" in the error, so aliases
don't seem to address it. I can dig that up probably.
Shouldn't it warn for:
if (0)
banned_function()
?
I believe we want it to.
You
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84628
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
12 matches
Mail list logo
