[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] bloody mess with __attribute__() syntax
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 09:41:55AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> Note that gcc rules for __attribute__() (and that's the only source
>>> of rules we _have_ for the damn thing) clearly say that
>>> int __user *p;
>>> is the same thing as
>>> int *__user p;
>> Quick question: is there some reason why we have to honor the crazy gcc
>> rules, and cannot try to convince gcc people that they are insane?
> AFAICS, they started with storage-class-like attributes. Consider e.g.
> always_inline or section; these are not qualifiers at all and you want
> to have
> static __attribute__((always_inline)) int foo(int *p);
> interpreted with attribute applied to foo, not to its return type.

This is true, but I don't think this is related. attributes in GCC can
apply either to types or two decls. In this case, the always_inline
attribute is being applied to the decl, but other attributes could be
applied to the return type.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-07-05 19:21    [W:0.064 / U:8.824 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site