http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742
--- Comment #31 from richard.guenther at gmail dot com <richard.guenther at gmail dot com> 2013-01-18 09:49:11 UTC --- On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:45 PM, xinliangli at gmail dot com <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742 > > --- Comment #30 from davidxl <xinliangli at gmail dot com> 2013-01-17 > 22:45:22 UTC --- > (In reply to comment #26) >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:02 PM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org >> <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >> > >> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55742 >> > >> > --- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-01-16 >> > 16:02:35 UTC --- >> > The actual merging of target attribute isn't that important, what would be >> > more >> > important is that other attributes are merged together in that case and the >> > decls treated as the same thing. >> > >> > Anyway, with target("any") attribute, what would happen for >> > void foo () __attribute__((target ("avx"))); >> > void foo () __attribute__((target ("any"))); >> >> IMHO the re-declaration with a different target attribute should be an error. > > This can be a clean way to handle declarations. The definition should have > either 'default' attribute or a matching target attribute. > >> A proper "forward" declaration for a function with MV applied shouldn't have >> any target attribute. > > What does this sentence mean? I think it would require to list all MV variants in the single declaration void foo () __attribute__ ((target ("avx"), target ("any"))); but I suppose this goes against the idea of treating MV variants as regular overloads which you can all declare. Of course the issue whether / how to "merge" target attributes then returns. I didn't pay too close attention, but if you settled on using a different attribute name and then never perform merging of that attribute that would indeed work. Richard. > > David > > -- > Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are on the CC list for the bug.
