https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81679
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81679
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81679
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #4)
> 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
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81679
--- Comment #4 from 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 a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81679
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81679
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81679
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> 1) When attribute unused is specified on a function argument of pointer type
> in
> a declaration of a function, GCC could use that as
