On 06/21/15 10:41, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 06/21/15 01:09, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
* ...
With the patch we would use:
__Noreturn void
foo(void) _dead2;
Which is still ugly but C11-ish.
That asks for the same problems as defining __weak.
Why not just don't use _Noreturn? It is an unimprovement on the gcc
attribute. The attribute works at the beginning or end, while Noreturn
only works at the end.
As I see it, newer (C11) software is likely to use _Noreturn in their
headers
We can define _Noreturn to support this (but possibly shouldn't).
The newer software many be pure C11. Then it doesn't need any
definition,
and just doesn't compile with non-C11 compilers.
Well, the fact this we just do this in the tree and no one has bothered to
"clean" the situation for older compilers just indicates that no one *cares*
about older compilers.
If we defined _Noreturn, it would be to use it in non-C11 software, like
we do in stdlib.h. This is a fragile compatibility hack so it should
be avoided if possible. We can easily avoid it in our own headers by
not changing anything. Just use the old declaration, with __dead2 placed
at the end. Any reasonable implementation of __attribute__() must be
able
to support any new attribute that a new standard might add.
The thing is, why bother with gnuisms at all?
I am personally OK with making it easier for everyone to use more
modern constructs but I am not going out of my way to support
gcc-1 or gcc-2.
Let's just admit it: the build is basically broken for older compilers
and no one cares enough to fix them. (Not ideal, just what we
have).
Pedro.
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
