https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85921
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Fri, 25 May 2018, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85921 > > --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > Or just get rid of the bogus variable. > const char *noinline = "noinline"; > > if (DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P (newdecl) > && DECL_UNINLINABLE (olddecl) > && lookup_attribute (noinline, DECL_ATTRIBUTES (olddecl))) > warned |= warning (OPT_Wattributes, "inline declaration of %qD follows " > "declaration with attribute %qs", newdecl, noinline); > else if (DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P (olddecl) > && DECL_UNINLINABLE (newdecl) > && lookup_attribute ("noinline", DECL_ATTRIBUTES (newdecl))) > warned |= warning (OPT_Wattributes, "declaration of %q+D with attribute " > "%qs follows inline declaration", newdecl, noinline); > > So it uses "noinline" in the second lookup_attribute, but noinline in the > first > one. > > Something like: > --- gcc/c-warn.c.jj 2018-05-21 13:15:33.878575581 +0200 > +++ gcc/c-warn.c 2018-05-25 14:28:12.151050892 +0200 > @@ -2246,18 +2246,16 @@ diagnose_mismatched_attributes (tree old > newdecl); > > /* Diagnose inline __attribute__ ((noinline)) which is silly. */ > - const char *noinline = "noinline"; > - > if (DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P (newdecl) > && DECL_UNINLINABLE (olddecl) > - && lookup_attribute (noinline, DECL_ATTRIBUTES (olddecl))) > + && lookup_attribute ("noinline", DECL_ATTRIBUTES (olddecl))) > warned |= warning (OPT_Wattributes, "inline declaration of %qD follows " > - "declaration with attribute %qs", newdecl, noinline); > + "declaration with attribute %<noinline%>", newdecl); > else if (DECL_DECLARED_INLINE_P (olddecl) > && DECL_UNINLINABLE (newdecl) > && lookup_attribute ("noinline", DECL_ATTRIBUTES (newdecl))) > warned |= warning (OPT_Wattributes, "declaration of %q+D with attribute " > - "%qs follows inline declaration", newdecl, noinline); > + "%<noinline%> follows inline declaration", newdecl); > > return warned; > } > > perhaps for backports don't change the wording of the translatable message and > just use "noinline" instead of noinline. Maybe it was changed to this to make translation easier?
