Re: any value to "NORET_TYPE" macro?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Sat, 26 May 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:

> 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.

ah, i hadn't noticed that.  i must think on this more.  man, i thought
this was going to be so simple.  argh.

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/