On Tue, 22 May 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote: > On 5/22/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 10:04:16AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: ... > > > no, i think you're thinking of the alternative ATTRIB_NORET > > > macro. as you can read in my previous post, NORET_TYPE used to > > > resolve to "__volatile__" for very old gcc. so i think it's > > > legitimately dead and can be ripped out. > > > > No doubt that it could be removed because it doesn't have any > > effect. > > > > But locking at the usages, it seems to have been used when people > > thought it was what __noreturn now is, so replacing NORET_TYPE > > with __noreturn might be a small optimization (but every > > NORET_TYPE should be checked that it's actually correct). > > Adrian's right, and in fact from ... > > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Function-Attributes.html > > ... we know why that macro existed and evaluated to __volatile__ for > pre-2.5 gcc. Perhaps most of today's users of NORET_TYPE were > probably looking for ATTRIB_NORET (which is quite common) actually. > > [ __noreturn is defined in compiler-gcc.h, so the easier way would > be to kill NORET_TYPE and replace its usages with ATTRIB_NORET > instead. Of course, after verifying that the function _really_ never > returns. ]
oh, barf. why does this always happen to me? :-) i just verified that a patch i threw together to rid the tree of NORET_TYPE does in fact (and not surprisingly) produce *exactly* the same 7000+ lines of output and, based on what we've established so far, that's exactly what it should have done. at this point, i'd prefer to submit that patch as is for a couple reasons. first, it's a no-brainer if all it does is remove every reference to NORET_TYPE and leave everything else untouched. if i go beyond that, then i'm starting to make judgment calls and possibly changing the logic, which makes this a totally different cleanup job. also, in a number of cases, there are some routines that are qualified with *both* NORET_TYPE and ATTRIB_NORET, suggesting that some developers knew very well what the difference was, and i was going to deal with all that ATTRIB_NORET nonsense in another pass. in short, i'd rather keep this as an aesthetic, no-op kind of cleanup, otherwise, i just *know* things are going to get ugly. the final patch will follow shortly. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page ======================================================================== - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
