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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4658C2C1.7060607@zytor.com>
Date:	Sat, 26 May 2007 16:29:05 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Transform old-style macros to newer "__noreturn"
 standard.

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> It does not make sense for a noreturn function to have a return type
>> other than void.
>> ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^
>> ===============================================================
>>
>>   so I'm just going to stick with the pattern that's been used so far.
>> i realize it offends your sense of syntactic sensibility, but it's
>> just not worth treating that one attribute so differently from the
>> rest of them.
>>
> 
> Why are you so hung up over the fact that the *implementation* of this
> is an attribute?  You're totally confusing interface and implementation.
> 

Perhaps I should clarify this:

The whole reason to abstract this as a macro *at all* is to take it away
from the specific implementation in gcc.  Thus, implementing an inferior
interface just because gcc happens to do it that way is actively
counterproductive.

	-hpa
-
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/