http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742



--- Comment #14 from davidxl <xinliangli at gmail dot com> 2013-01-14 17:49:59 
UTC ---

(In reply to comment #13)

> (In reply to comment #12)

> > (In reply to comment #10)

> > > Either use a different name of the attribute (replace target with 
> > > mv_target or

> > > whatever), or require a new attribute (mv?) to be present for 
> > > multi-versioning

> > > (mv attribute on any of the decls would enable it, if mv attribute isn't

> > > present on either of the two decls being merged, then the target 
> > > attribute is

> > > merged as before 4.8).

> > 

> > 

> > I like this proposal:

> 

> I too like just using a different attribute name. I will prepare a patch asap

> for this.

> 

> Thanks

> Sri.

> 

> > 

> > >require a new attribute (mv?) to be present for multi-versioning

> > > (mv attribute on any of the decls would enable it, if mv attribute isn't

> > > present on either of the two decls being merged, then the target 
> > > attribute is

> > > merged as before 4.8)

> > 

> > 

> > David





I mean Jacub's second alternative -- adding additional attribute that alters

the meaning of 'target' attribute -- when it is present, no merging will be

done.





David

Reply via email to