On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 09:23:27PM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > "noreturn"... What would that mean, *exactly*? It cannot execute any
> > code the compiler can see, so such asm is better off as real asm anyway
> > (not inline asm).
>
> "Exactly" is a strong word, and this wasn't my proposal, but...
> I think it would act like a noreturn call to an unknown function.
> Output operands wouldn't make sense, and arguably clobbers wouldn't
> either.
"noreturn" asm can be done already now, just use
asm volatile ("..." ...);
__builtin_unreachable ();
I think there is no need to add a new syntax for that.
Jakub
