Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 25 May 2007 13:33:29 -0400 (EDT) | From | "Robert P. J. Day" <> | Subject | Re: any value to "NORET_TYPE" macro? |
| |
On Fri, 25 May 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On 5/24/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > while in actual definitions, they typically go after the return type, > > as in arch/arm/kernel/traps.c: > > > > void __attribute__((noreturn)) __bug(const char *file, int line) > > { > > printk(KERN_CRIT"kernel BUG at %s:%d!\n", file, line); > > *(int *)0 = 0; > > > > /* Avoid "noreturn function does return" */ > > for (;;); > > } > > Function attributes don't need to appear in function definitions at all. > (I've not come across such cases often, so this is certainly not the > standard). Anyway, the above is a case that the function lacks a > separate declaration which is why we put it there at the definition. > And yes, if we really do have to put an attribute in the function > definition, then we do need to place it _before_ the function name.
right -- the above was referring only to those instances (and there are some of them) where there is no declaration, only a definition.
i'll take another shot at a patch shortly.
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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |