On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 12:21:38PM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > + case RID_RETURN:
> > > > + {
> > > > + bool musttail_p = false;
> > > > + std_attrs = process_stmt_hotness_attribute (std_attrs,
> > > > attrs_loc);
> > > > + if (lookup_attribute ("", "musttail", std_attrs))
> > > > + {
> > > > + musttail_p = true;
> > > > + std_attrs = remove_attribute ("", "musttail",
> > > > std_attrs);
> > > > + }
>
> Using "" looks wrong to me, that is for standard attributes which
> are also gnu attributes, say [[noreturn]]/[[gnu::noreturn]].
> That is not the case here. Even the __attribute__((musttail)) form will have
> gnu namespace.
And it's incorrect to use [[musttail]] (C23 syntax, no namespace) in any
circumstances, at least for C, as it's not a standard attribute - so tests
should verify that [[musttail]] is diagnosed as ignored even in contexts
where [[gnu::musttail]] is valid. (It can't be standardized as
[[musttail]] because of the rule that standard attributes must be
ignorable; the proposed syntax for a TS and possible future
standardization after that is "return goto".)
--
Joseph S. Myers
josmy...@redhat.com
