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
