From: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] bloody mess with __attribute__() syntax
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 18:09:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070705170918.GO21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0707050930330.9434@woody.linux-foundation.org>
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 09:41:55AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> IOW, as far as I can tell, there's really no reason to add a
> "__qualifier__" handler, because it's not going to help us. Anything we
> can do with __qualifier__, we can already do with our __attribute__
> parsing: what you suggest would involve having a new place for parsing
> __attributes__, and making the *current* qualifier-like attribute parsing
> trigger on "__qualifier__" instead.
>
> So what I'd suggest is to just have *both* cases trigger on __attribute__,
> but in the qualifier case we'd use NS_QUALIFIER to look up the attribute
> function, and in the non-qualifier case we'd use NS_ATTRIBUTE (right now
> we always use NS_KEYWORD, and that's probably bogus: we should put the
> attribute names in another namespace _anyway_).
But that's the problem - we have places where *both* qualifiers and
attributes are allowed and they apply to different parts of declaration.
Note that we mishandle __attribute__((mode())) right now in a way that
makes no sense at all. E.g. if it happens in the end of declaration,
we still apply it to the root type. gcc applies it to the entire
declaration in that case, and that certainly makes much more sense.
So I'm afraid that we need to change __attribute__ parsing anyway...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-05 17:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-07-05 9:35 [RFC] bloody mess with __attribute__() syntax Al Viro
2007-07-05 12:03 ` Arnd Bergmann
[not found] ` <OFC2AA6078.1DF7BE7E-ON4225730F.0044BE34-4225730F.0046B6F1@de.ibm.com>
2007-07-05 16:27 ` Al Viro
2007-07-05 15:36 ` Josh Triplett
2007-07-05 16:43 ` Al Viro
2007-07-05 18:50 ` Josh Triplett
2007-07-05 19:13 ` Al Viro
2007-07-05 19:35 ` Josh Triplett
2007-07-05 20:08 ` Al Viro
2007-07-05 20:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-07-06 3:26 ` Al Viro
2007-07-05 21:09 ` Josh Triplett
2007-07-05 16:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-07-05 16:53 ` Al Viro
2007-07-05 17:02 ` Chris Lattner
2007-07-05 17:09 ` Al Viro [this message]
2007-07-05 17:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-07-05 18:07 ` Al Viro
2007-07-05 18:56 ` Linus Torvalds
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070705170918.GO21478@ftp.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@ftp.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox