Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>> Breaking the standard is what brings us the joys of recently (re)posted
>>>>> patch for NetBSD and [u]intXX fun.
>>>>>     
>>>> I have no problem with calling it 'noreturn' instead.
>>>>   
>>> That will break code that wants to use 'noreturn' as a local variable. 
>>> I think ATTR_NORETURN, while a lot uglier, is safer.
>> Do you have such code already? Is it exported beyond qemu scope? Then
>> why not going for our own convention "'noreturn' is reserved as function
>> attribute"? (And yes, your macro is ugly :) ).
> 
> "Macro names should be in upper case" is also a useful convention.

Generally yes. But there are exceptions when the macro is used in a
context where upper case disturbs the readability instead of improving
it. I would argue that this is the case here, but it's always a matter
of taste.

> 
> FWIW, I agree with Stefan, there's currently not much need to isolate
> gcc-isms.

If everyone prefers having __attribute__ in the function prototypes
directly -- OK. All I want is to get rid of the warnings without
changing the code into the wrong direction.

Jan