Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> ... and declare functions as:
>>
>> __noreturn f();
>>
>> ... which is the syntactially sane way of doing it.
>
> that may be, but keep in mind that gcc allows attributes to *follow*
> the parameter list as well, and some people might prefer to do the
> following:
>
> f() __noreturn;
>
> that would fail badly if you defined __noreturn as you suggest.
That's equally moronic that saying that "some people might prefer to
write 'f() void;'", which is what it's *EXACTLY* equivalent to. Yes,
they might "prefer" it, but it's syntactically invalid and the compiler
won't accept it. As it shouldn't.
__noreturn here takes the syntactic place of the return type, because
that's what it IS.
-hpa
-
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/
