Hi Peter,
On 5/26/07, H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
