Re: any value to "NORET_TYPE" macro?

[Satyam Sharma]

Hi Robert,

On 5/25/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> ...
> > 1. If this is a function _declaration_ (i.e. a prototype in some
> > header or some .c file), then remove the NORET_TYPE macro. Also,
> > if an ATTRIB_NORET or NORET_AND already exists then you're done.
> > Else, introduce an ATTRIB_NORET after the arglist but before ;
>
> actually, what i would be introducing in all cases is "__noreturn",
> the short form currently defined in compiler-gcc.h.  and i would be
> removing every instance of ATTRIB_NORET and its buddies.

Ummm ... you mean we're replacing all occurrences of ATTRIB_NORET
as well? Note that NORET_TYPE and ATTRIB_NORET are both defined
in the generic include/linux/linkage.h whereas __noreturn is in
compiler-gcc.h which is included only for gcc builds -- hence, my
preference for ATTRIB_NORET. Also, there is not even a single user of
__noreturn anywhere in the kernel code whereas ATTRIB_NORET is used
in all these places, which means it looks like to be the standard thing ...
Anyway, I'm fine either way.

Thanks,
Satyam
-
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/