https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89288
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P1 |P3
Target Milestone|9.0 |---
Summary|[9 Regression] ICE in |ICE in tree_code_size, at
|tree_code_size, at |tree.c:865
|tree.c:865 |
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Hmm, we don't seem to get consensus here. I also don't see how this is
a regression, my GCC 8 compiler doesn't know __builtin_has_attribute.
So, removing the regression marker.
Can we, for GCC 9, simply say
sorry ("unsupported argument to __builtin_has_attribute");
instead of ICEing and/or extending the specification in some ways?
For reference, GCC 8 says
t.c:1:22: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘__builtin_has_attribute’;
did you mean ‘__builtin_va_start’? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
typedef int Assert [(__builtin_has_attribute (1, target("sse")) == 1)];
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
__builtin_va_start
t.c:1:50: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘target’
[-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
typedef int Assert [(__builtin_has_attribute (1, target("sse")) == 1)];
^~~~~~
t.c:1:13: error: variably modified ‘Assert’ at file scope
typedef int Assert [(__builtin_has_attribute (1, target("sse")) == 1)];
^~~~~~
