On Mon, 5 Feb 2018, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 02/05/2018 04:44 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Feb 2018, Martin Sebor wrote: > > > > > We've talked about (2) in the past (bug 71463) but this seems > > > like an opportunity to revisit it and (hopefully) make a change > > > to treat these the same as all other function attributes rather > > > than type attributes. Besides fixing the wrong code bugs and > > > > I'd say that actually more attributes should be made into type attributes > > where they are currently function attributes - anything that affects > > optimizations or warnings in the caller based on properties of the callee > > is something where it's meaningful to have a pointer-to-function where the > > pointed-to function type has that property. > > What then happens when the pointer to which the attributes are > transferred (presumably by initialization) is then assigned > the address of a function that has different attributes that?
The pointer object gets the attributes by being declared with the appropriate attribute. (Example: the error member of struct cpp_callbacks in cpplib.h.) If a pointer to a function that lacks the required property is stored in the object with pointer-to-attributed-function type, that's a bug - just as it's a bug if a function is declared with an attribute without satisfying the required properties. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
