Your message dated Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:56:51 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line The benefits are not worth the cost of divergence
has caused the Debian Bug report #189784,
regarding yy_fatal_error should be declared noreturn
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
immediately.)
--
189784: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=189784
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: flex
Version: 2.5.31-3
Severity: normal
yy_fatal_error calls exit(), so it should be declared noreturn
(improves optimisation of things that call it and makes
-Wmissing-noreturn happy).
Something along these lines, at or around line 697 of flex.skl:
-static void yy_fatal_error M4_YY_PARAMS( yyconst char msg[]
M4_YY_PROTO_LAST_ARG );
+#ifdef __GNUC__
+static void yy_fatal_error M4_YY_PARAMS( yyconst char msg[]
M4_YY_PROTO_LAST_ARG ) __attribute__((noreturn));
+#else
+static void yy_fatal_error M4_YY_PARAMS( yyconst char msg[]
M4_YY_PROTO_LAST_ARG );
+#endif
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux cyclone 2.4.21-pre4-ac4 #30 Wed Feb 12 21:40:14 GMT 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Versions of packages flex depends on:
ii libc6 2.3.1-16 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii m4 1.4-15 a macro processing language
-- no debconf information
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
`. `' | Imperial College,
`- -><- | London, UK
pgpOf4RJfnXhz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
Upstream said:
> This patch is specific to a single compiler. We do not plan to branch
> the code for compiler-specific optimizations that do not solve a
> crucial portability issue or bug. We're actively trying to REDUCE the
> branches rs and conditional compilation. 0;
It has been nearly 5 years since then. I do not think the added
(minor) benefit is worth the cost of diverging from upstream in this
regard.
manoj
--
Keep it short for pithy sake.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--- End Message ---
