H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> It does not make sense for a noreturn function to have a return type
>> other than void.
>> ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^
>> ===============================================================
>>
>> so I'm just going to stick with the pattern that's been used so far.
>> i realize it offends your sense of syntactic sensibility, but it's
>> just not worth treating that one attribute so differently from the
>> rest of them.
>>
>
> Why are you so hung up over the fact that the *implementation* of this
> is an attribute? You're totally confusing interface and implementation.
>
Perhaps I should clarify this:
The whole reason to abstract this as a macro *at all* is to take it away
from the specific implementation in gcc. Thus, implementing an inferior
interface just because gcc happens to do it that way is actively
counterproductive.
-hpa
-
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/
