On Sun, Dec 11, 2011, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2011, at 21:12, Andreas Tobler wrote:
>
> > As far as I understand, GCC does not support this attribute [[noreturn]]
> > yet. But it defines both, __cplusplus and __cplusplus=201103L. On gcc-4.7
> > __cplusplus=201103L is the default when w
On 11 Dec 2011, at 21:12, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> As far as I understand, GCC does not support this attribute [[noreturn]] yet.
> But it defines both, __cplusplus and __cplusplus=201103L. On gcc-4.7
> __cplusplus=201103L is the default when we build libstdc++.
Advertising C++11 compatibility an
* David Chisnall , 20111207 22:17:
> As per das@'s suggestion, s/__noreturn/_Noreturn/, since the latter is an
> identifier reserved for the implementation in C99 and earlier so there is
> no sensible reason for introducing yet another reserved identifier when we
> could just use the one C1
On 08.12.11 21:40, Andreas Tobler wrote:
On 07.12.11 22:17, David Chisnall wrote:
Author: theraven
Date: Wed Dec 7 21:17:50 2011
New Revision: 228330
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/228330
Log:
As per das@'s suggestion, s/__noreturn/_Noreturn/, since the latter is an
identif
On 07.12.11 22:17, David Chisnall wrote:
Author: theraven
Date: Wed Dec 7 21:17:50 2011
New Revision: 228330
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/228330
Log:
As per das@'s suggestion, s/__noreturn/_Noreturn/, since the latter is an
identifier reserved for the implementation in C99 a
Author: theraven
Date: Wed Dec 7 21:17:50 2011
New Revision: 228330
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/228330
Log:
As per das@'s suggestion, s/__noreturn/_Noreturn/, since the latter is an
identifier reserved for the implementation in C99 and earlier so there is
no sensible reason f
