On Fri, 25 May 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > Convert old/obsolete NORET_TYPE and ATTRIB_NORET macros to use the > > newer standard of "__noreturn" as defined in compiler-gcc.h. > > > > Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > 1) in a function declaration, the "__noreturn" will go at the end of > > the declaration. > > > > 2) in a definition, "__noreturn" will go between the return type and > > the function name > > > > 3) in a function typedef, "__noreturn" will go immediately after the > > return type, just like with definitions. > > > > 4) if a function definition already includes "__noreturn", there's no > > point in having any external references to it also say the same thing. > > (right?) > > This is dumb, though. > > "void __noreturn" is redundant. It would be much cleaner to have a > macro which amounts to "void __attribute__((noreturn))" and use it > instead of giving a return type. > > Even "void" as the return type is bogus -- the function never > returns so it doesn't *have* a return type...
i agree, and i just did a quick test and noticed that, if you try to declare a function thusly: f() __attribute__((noreturn)) ; you get: warning: data definition has no type or storage class but gcc doesn't complain if you declare it thusly: __attribute__((noreturn)) f() ; that strikes me as a flaw in gcc, no? 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/
