On Tue, 22 May 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote: > On 5/22/07, Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > actually, one of the folks on the KJ list found this: > > > > http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9605/1957.html > > > > which speaks thusly: > > > > ... > > -#if __GNUC__ < 2 || (__GNUC__ == 2 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 5) > > -# define NORET_TYPE __volatile__ > > -# define ATTRIB_NORET /**/ > > -# define NORET_AND /**/ > > -#else > > # define NORET_TYPE /**/ > > # define ATTRIB_NORET __attribute__((noreturn)) > > # define NORET_AND noreturn, > > -#endif > > ... > > > > so it looks like a thoroughly obsolete macro which can be tossed. > > i'll make the patch and test it. > > AFAICT, NORET_TYPE must've been introduced to silence gcc > _warnings_, and not do actually do anything useful that affects > functionality in any way. So the way to "test" your patch would be > to see if there is any increase / decrease in the number of > *warnings* blurted out by gcc during kernel build (best would be to > build with various gcc versions on various platforms :-) i can understand that logic but, since that macro wouldn't have any effect since gcc-2.2.5 and the current version of the kernel won't even *build* with gcc < 3.2, i can't imagine how there could be any difference these days. of course, i've been unpleasantly surprised before. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page ======================================================================== - 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/
