On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 02/16/2017 12:49 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> PR c++/79502 >>> * pt.c (apply_late_template_attributes): If there are >>> no dependent attributes, set *p to attributes. If there were >>> some attributes in *p previously with or without dependent >>> attributes, chain them after the new attributes. >> >> >> Here's the variant of your patch that I'm applying. > > > Sorry to butt in but I feel like I'm missing something basic. Are > these attributes (nodiscard, noreturn, maybe_unused, and deprecated) > meant to apply to templates? The text in for nodiscard suggests > they're not: > > The attribute-token nodiscard may be applied to the declarator-id > in a function declaration or to the declaration of a class or > enumeration. > > Noreturn also doesn't mention templates: > > The attribute may be applied to the declarator-id in a function > declaration. > > Deprecated explicitly mentions template specializations but not > primary templates: > > The attribute may be applied to the declaration of a class, > a typedef-name, a variable, a non-static data member, a function, > a namespace, an enumeration, an enumerator, or a template > specialization. > > I can certainly see how applying attributes to the primary template > would be useful so it's puzzling to me that the standard seems to > preclude it.
I don't think it's precluded; a /template-declaration/ syntactically includes a /declaration/, so in general any statement about e.g. a function declaration also applies to a function template declaration. > I ask also because I was just looking at bug 79021 and scratching > my head about what to thing about it. While trying to understand > how GCC handles attributes for the primary template I came across > what doesn't make sense to me. Why would it apply the attribute > from the primary to the explicit specialization when the two are > distinct entities? Is that a bug? This seems like a Core issue; the standard says nothing about how attributes on a template affect specializations. I think that as a general rule, not applying attributes from the template to specializations makes sense. There will be some exceptions, such as the abi_tag attribute which is a property of the name rather than a particular declaration. Jason
