Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 26 May 2007 04:05:46 +0530 | From | "Satyam Sharma" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Transform old-style macros to newer "__noreturn" standard. |
| |
On 5/26/07, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote: > Satyam Sharma wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Sorry to say, but weren't you the person who didn't recognize !! as the > idiomatic booleanizing operator?
Yes, of course, please prove a link / connection between that and this?
> I think you need to learn that everything that the compiler accepts > isn't necessarily idiomatic, readable code. Consider > __attribute__((noreturn)); it's a nonstandard feature implemented using > a generic gcc mechanism -- thus what the compiler will accept is quite > flexible, because it's a generic building block. It doesn't mean it's a > good idea. > > The reason it's often written at the end of the expression mostly has to > do with bugs in some very early versions of gcc.
That might be, but I was only saying that there is no syntactical *compulsion* to combine the attribute with the return type. As for what's readable, it is subjective. And as for what's common / standard / idiomatic in the kernel code as of today, nothing beats a grep. Anyway, as I said previously, I'm fine with either way.
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/
| |