linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Transform old-style macros to newer "_

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705251458440.13906@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Fri, 25 May 2007 15:04:18 -0400 (EDT)
From:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Transform old-style macros to newer "__noreturn"
 standard.

On Fri, 25 May 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > Convert old/obsolete NORET_TYPE and ATTRIB_NORET macros to use the
> > newer standard of "__noreturn" as defined in compiler-gcc.h.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...dspring.com>
>
> > 1) in a function declaration, the "__noreturn" will go at the end of
> > the declaration.
> >
> > 2) in a definition, "__noreturn" will go between the return type and
> > the function name
> >
> > 3) in a function typedef, "__noreturn" will go immediately after the
> > return type, just like with definitions.
> >
> > 4) if a function definition already includes "__noreturn", there's no
> > point in having any external references to it also say the same thing.
> > (right?)
>
> This is dumb, though.
>
> "void __noreturn" is redundant.  It would be much cleaner to have a
> macro which amounts to "void __attribute__((noreturn))" and use it
> instead of giving a return type.
>
> Even "void" as the return type is bogus -- the function never
> returns so it doesn't *have* a return type...

i agree, and i just did a quick test and noticed that, if you try to
declare a function thusly:

  f() __attribute__((noreturn)) ;

you get:

  warning: data definition has no type or storage class

but gcc doesn't complain if you declare it thusly:

  __attribute__((noreturn)) f() ;

that strikes me as a flaw in gcc, no?

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