The design of the attribute exclusion framework includes
support for different exclusions applying to different
kinds of declarations (functions, types, and variables
or fields), but the support is incomplete -- the logic
to consider these differences is missing. This is
because the differences are apparently rare. However,
as the bug below points out, they do exist.
PR middle-end/84108 - incorrect -Wattributes warning for
packed/aligned conflict on struct members, shows that while
declaring a non-member variable aligned is enough to reduce
the its alignment and declaring it both aligned and packed
triggers a -Wattributes warning:
int a __attribute__((packed, aligned (2))); // -Wattributes
a struct member must be declared both aligned and packed in
order to have its alignment reduced. (Declaring a member
just aligned has no effect and doesn't cause a warning).
struct S {
int b __attribute__((packed, aligned (2)));
int c __attribute__((aligned (2))); // no effect
};
As a result of the incomplete logic GCC 8 issues a -Wattributes
for the declaration of b in the struct.
By adding the missing logic the attached patch lets GCC avoid
the spurious warning.
I considered adding support for detecting the ineffective
attribute aligned on the declaration of the member c at
the same time but since that's not a regression I decided
to defer that until GCC 9. I opened bug 84185 to track it.
Tested on x86_64-linux with no regressions.
Martin
PR middle-end/84108 - incorrect -Wattributes warning for packed/aligned conflict on struct members
gcc/ChangeLog:
PR c/84108
* attribs.c (diag_attr_exclusions): Consider the exclusion(s)
that correspond to the kind of a declaration.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR c/84108
* gcc.dg/Wattributes-8.c: New test.
diff --git a/gcc/attribs.c b/gcc/attribs.c
index 2cac9c4..140863b 100644
--- a/gcc/attribs.c
+++ b/gcc/attribs.c
@@ -410,6 +410,22 @@ diag_attr_exclusions (tree last_decl, tree node, tree attrname,
if (!lookup_attribute (excl->name, attrs[i]))
continue;
+ /* An exclusion may apply either to a function declaration,
+ type declaration, or a field/variable declaration, or
+ any subset of the three. */
+ if (TREE_CODE (node) == FUNCTION_DECL
+ && !excl->function)
+ continue;
+
+ if (TREE_CODE (node) == TYPE_DECL
+ && !excl->type)
+ continue;
+
+ if ((TREE_CODE (node) == FIELD_DECL
+ || TREE_CODE (node) == VAR_DECL)
+ && !excl->variable)
+ continue;
+
found = true;
/* Print a note? */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Wattributes-8.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Wattributes-8.c
new file mode 100644
index 000..a4b4c00
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/Wattributes-8.c
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+/* PR middle-end/84108 - incorrect -Wattributes warning for packed/aligned
+ conflict on struct members
+ { dg-do compile }
+ { dg-options "-Wall -Wattributes" } */
+
+#define ATTR(list) __attribute__ (list)
+#define ASSERT(e) _Static_assert (e, #e)
+
+/* GCC is inconsistent in how it treats attribute aligned between
+ variable and member declarations. Attribute aligned alone is
+ sufficient to reduce a variable's alignment requirement but
+ the attribute must be paired with packed to have the same
+ effect on a member. Worse, declaring a variable both aligned
+ and packed emits a warning. */
+
+/* Avoid exercising this since emitting a warning for these given
+ the requirement for members seems like a misfeature:
+ int a ATTR ((packed, aligned (2))); // -Wattributes
+ int b ATTR ((aligned (2), packed)); // -Wattributes
+ ASSERT (_Alignof (a) == 2);
+ ASSERT (_Alignof (b) == 2); */
+
+int c ATTR ((aligned (2))); // okay (reduces alignment)
+ASSERT (_Alignof (c) == 2);
+
+struct {
+ int a ATTR ((packed, aligned (2))); /* { dg-bogus "\\\[-Wattributes" } */
+ int b ATTR ((aligned (2), packed)); /* { dg-bogus "\\\[-Wattributes" } */
+
+ /* Avoid exercising this since the attribute has no effect yet
+ there is no warning.
+ int c ATTR ((aligned (2))); // missing warning? */
+} s;
+
+ASSERT (_Alignof (s.a) == 2);
+ASSERT (_Alignof (s.b) == 2);
+
+/* ASSERT (_Alignof (s.c) == 4); */
