Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 09:23:27PM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> > "noreturn"... What would that mean, *exactly*? It cannot execute any
>> > code the compiler can see, so such asm is better off as real asm anyway
>> > (not inline asm).
>>
>> "Exactly" is a strong word, and this wasn't my proposal, but...
>> I think it would act like a noreturn call to an unknown function.
>> Output operands wouldn't make sense, and arguably clobbers wouldn't
>> either.
>
> "noreturn" asm can be done already now, just use
> asm volatile ("..." ...);
> __builtin_unreachable ();
>
> I think there is no need to add a new syntax for that.
ISTR the point was that the PowerPC ABI places requirements on functions
with noreturn calls and the attribute would help GCC do the right thing
in those circumstances. So "noreturn" would imply a call that doesn't
return, rather than just an infinite loop.
Richard
