Re: any value to "NORET_TYPE" macro?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Thu, 24 May 2007, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:

> "Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Actually there's another thing :-) The __attribute__((xxx)) must go with the
> > function _declarations_ (and not the implementations/definitions). I noticed
> > after my previous mail that most of the double annotations are actually in
> > the case of the _declarations_ of these non-returning functions, whereas
> > most of the single-occurrences of NORET_TYPE were in the function
> > definitions, which means your patch that simply got rid of NORET_TYPE
> > actually ended up doing exactly the right thing that we wanted :-)
>
> Only half of it. Half of right thing is (here) a bad thing.
>
> NORET_TYPE does not do any harm.
> Removing it removes pointers to attrib((noreturn)) candidates.
> Simple.

everybody take a valium -- i asked andrew to drop that patch from the
mm-tree until i get the time to go back and take a closer look.

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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/