On 2/21/19 1:12 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 2/21/19 12:08 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 2/18/19 7:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> Please let me know what it will take to get the fix for these two >>> issues approved. I've answered the questions so I don't know what >>> else I'm expected to do here. >>> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-02/msg00793.html >> I think there is still a fundamental disagreement about whether or not >> this should be handling expressions. Without an agreement on that it's >> hard to see how this could go forward. > > I think it's wrong to hold up a fix for an ICE because you don't > like the current design. The built-in successfully handles common > expressions (see c-c++-common/builtin-has-attribute-5.c). It just > fails for some of the less common ones. Not fixing those will only > penalize users who run into the ICE, and cast a bad light on > the quality of the release. Any design questions should be > settled separately of these ICEs (should have been when > the feature was being reviewed). > > That said, I have explained the rationale for the current design. > Neither you nor Jakub has explained what you find wrong with it or > why either of your alternatives is preferable. You said it should > be an error to apply the built-in to expressions (why?). Jakub > thought there perhaps should be two built-ins, one for expressions > and another for decls. His rationale? The current design is not > good. Clearly, the two of you don't agree on what you'd like to > see; the only thing you agree on is that you don't like what's > there now. What do you expect me to do with that, now at the end > of stage 4? Fix the ice in another way. Handling expressions here seems fundamentally wrong. ISTM that making this query on an expression should result in an immediate error.
jeff
