[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a781481a0705251225g12d2cd8eya57df87fcbfd5eed@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 00:55:17 +0530
From: "Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Cc: "Krzysztof Halasa" <khc@...waw.pl>, "Adrian Bunk" <bunk@...sta.de>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: any value to "NORET_TYPE" macro?
Hi Robert,
On 5/25/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...dspring.com> 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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists