Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Transform old-style macros to newer "__noreturn"standard.

[H. Peter Anvin]

Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> ... and declare functions as:
>>
>> __noreturn f();
>>
>> ... which is the syntactially sane way of doing it.
> 
> that may be, but keep in mind that gcc allows attributes to *follow*
> the parameter list as well, and some people might prefer to do the
> following:
> 
>   f() __noreturn;
> 
> that would fail badly if you defined __noreturn as you suggest.

That's equally moronic that saying that "some people might prefer to
write 'f() void;'", which is what it's *EXACTLY* equivalent to.  Yes,
they might "prefer" it, but it's syntactically invalid and the compiler
won't accept it.  As it shouldn't.

__noreturn here takes the syntactic place of the return type, because
that's what it IS.

	-hpa
-
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/