https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81679
Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed| |2019-02-03
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5)
> (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 that the optimization might break, then the attribute could
> > > be
> > > specified differently (e.g., as a function attribute with an argument
> > > number
> > > indicating which argument is unused; that would also differentiate it from
> > > the existing function attribute). Or the same feature could be provided
> > > under a different attribute. The main idea here is the ability to express
> > > the notion that a function doesn't modify an object via its (non-const)
> > > pointer argument. The name for the feature is secondary (though "unused"
> > > is obviously a nice fit).
> >
> > The "unused" attribute always means "possibly unused, don't warn if
> > actually unused". It would be a mistake to make it mean anything else.
>
> ...so close this as WONTFIX then?
WAITING on a reply
