Re: [RFC] bloody mess with __attribute__() syntax

[Chris Lattner <sabre@nondot.org>]

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 09:41:55AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > Note that gcc rules for __attribute__() (and that's the only source
> > > of rules we _have_ for the damn thing) clearly say that
> > > 	int __user *p;
> > > is the same thing as
> > > 	int *__user p;
> >
> > Quick question: is there some reason why we have to honor the crazy gcc
> > rules, and cannot try to convince gcc people that they are insane?
>
> AFAICS, they started with storage-class-like attributes.  Consider e.g.
> always_inline or section; these are not qualifiers at all and you want
> to have
> static __attribute__((always_inline)) int foo(int *p);
> interpreted with attribute applied to foo, not to its return type.

This is true, but I don't think this is related.  attributes in GCC can 
apply either to types or two decls.  In this case, the always_inline 
attribute is being applied to the decl, but other attributes could be 
applied to the return type.

-Chris

--
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.org/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/