[Bug c++/86368] an unknown [[attribute]] should not trigger a warning in C++17

2019-04-17 Thread jbassett271 at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86368 --- Comment #9 from Justin Bassett --- After more reflection, I do believe that ignoring attributes from unknown namespaces is one of the best options. My suggestion of whitelisting attributes falls apart when we consider how many attributes

[Bug c++/86368] an unknown [[attribute]] should not trigger a warning in C++17

2019-04-17 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86368 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Justin Bassett from comment #7) > and it won't extend to future standardized attributes. That's a Good Thing. If I use a new standardized attribute like [[no_unique_address]] I definitely

[Bug c++/86368] an unknown [[attribute]] should not trigger a warning in C++17

2019-04-16 Thread jbassett271 at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86368 Justin Bassett changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jbassett271 at gmail dot com ---

[Bug c++/86368] an unknown [[attribute]] should not trigger a warning in C++17

2019-02-02 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86368 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug c++/86368] an unknown [[attribute]] should not trigger a warning in C++17

2018-07-03 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86368 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Hannes Hauswedell from comment #3) > BUT if this code generates warnings there is a problem: obviously I don't > want to tell downstream developers that "it's ok, just ignore the warnings" >

[Bug c++/86368] an unknown [[attribute]] should not trigger a warning in C++17

2018-07-03 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86368 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- It's quite unlikely (pun intended) that code randomly sprinkled with various non-standard annotations (attributes, pragmas, or otherwise) will eventually have the same effect across all implementations once

[Bug c++/86368] an unknown [[attribute]] should not trigger a warning in C++17

2018-07-03 Thread h2+bugs at fsfe dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86368 --- Comment #3 from Hannes Hauswedell --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > It might be reasonable for GCC to silently ignore attributes that use an > unrecognized attribute-namespace. If somebody uses [[clang::foobar]] or >

[Bug c++/86368] an unknown [[attribute]] should not trigger a warning in C++17

2018-07-02 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86368 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- It might be reasonable for GCC to silently ignore attributes that use an unrecognized attribute-namespace. If somebody uses [[clang::foobar]] or [[acme::rocketboots]] they probably aren't expecting GCC to

[Bug c++/86368] an unknown [[attribute]] should not trigger a warning in C++17

2018-07-02 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86368 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|