Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 26 May 2007 03:46:48 +0530 | From | "Satyam Sharma" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Transform old-style macros to newer "__noreturn" standard. |
| |
Hi Peter,
On 5/26/07, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > 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.
But __attribute__((noreturn)) is simply a _function attribute_. Of course, it is legal / valid only for functions with return-type void, so it does make sense to combine both void and __attribute__((noreturn)) in the same macro like you say. But that's not syntactically necessary. In fact, grepping through the sources, a lot of people do prefer to place the attribute _after_ the function declarator.
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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |