2011/3/17 Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com>: > On 03/17/2011 04:46 AM, Kai Tietz wrote: >> >> PING, ok for 4.7? > > Did you have a response to my comment below? > >> 2011/1/4 Jason Merrill<ja...@redhat.com>: >>> >>> On 01/01/2011 01:07 PM, Kai Tietz wrote: >>>> >>>> Well, as here no further agreement was found, I post here the >>>> alternative suggested by Joseph. I am open-minded which approach will >>>> be chosen. I just want to fix this long pending issue. >>>> I split up this patch in two parts. The first simply extends the >>>> struct attribute_spec by new member 'on_diagnostic' and extends the >>>> the uses of this structure by this new field. This new member >>>> specifies if the attribute shall be show on diagnostic output, or not. >>> >>> This seems like a reasonable approach, but I'd prefer to describe/name >>> the >>> field as indicating that the attribute affects type compatibility (since >>> that's why we want to see the attribute in diagnostics), and making the >>> default comp_type_attributes use that information. > >
I thought to use here instead of on_diagnostic (which is IMHO fine too as it indicates for now only that attribute shall be displayed on diagnostics) "affects_abi". I think it makes sense to keep that name as short as possible. Regards, Kai
