Re: any value to "NORET_TYPE" macro?

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>]

On Tue, 22 May 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:

> On 5/22/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> 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
========================================================================