Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
> But __attribute__((noreturn)) is simply a _function attribute_. Of course,
> it is legal / valid only for functions with return-type void, so it does
> make
> sense to combine both void and __attribute__((noreturn)) in the same
> macro like you say. But that's not syntactically necessary. In fact,
> grepping through the sources, a lot of people do prefer to place the
> attribute _after_ the function declarator.
>
> Anyway, I'm fine either way.
>
Sorry to say, but weren't you the person who didn't recognize !! as the
idiomatic booleanizing operator?
I think you need to learn that everything that the compiler accepts
isn't necessarily idiomatic, readable code. Consider
__attribute__((noreturn)); it's a nonstandard feature implemented using
a generic gcc mechanism -- thus what the compiler will accept is quite
flexible, because it's a generic building block. It doesn't mean it's a
good idea.
The reason it's often written at the end of the expression mostly has to
do with bugs in some very early versions of gcc.
-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/
