From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kamil Dudka Subject: Re: [PATCH] do not ignore attribute 'noreturn'... Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:32:12 +0200 Message-ID: <200909141932.12684.kdudka@redhat.com> References: <200908282330.08332.kdudka@redhat.com> <70318cbf0908281444q735b7b9fm73f0fcbdbaeefa7b@mail.gmail.com> <70318cbf0909141027y69ddecc2y591ffb6aca300fca@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:14125 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751276AbZINRdM (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:33:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <70318cbf0909141027y69ddecc2y591ffb6aca300fca@mail.gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Christopher Li Cc: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Monday 14 of September 2009 19:27:40 Christopher Li wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Christopher Li wrote: > > Yes, no return is kind of useful. I think we need to do some thing about > > the MOD_XXX eventually. It is very easy to run out of bits there. > > Ah, the MOD_NORETURN is bigger than size of long in 32 bit systems. > I just get a few warning from GCC. > > I just relocate the MOD_NORETURN bits. Thanks! It makes sense to me. As for the long term solution, I don't think it's possible without breaking the current API/ABI. What about using a bitfield instead? I can see it solved this way in . Kamil