From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1L6kpp-00036N-M4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 06:51:34 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1L6kpm-00035c-U8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 06:51:31 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52502 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L6kpl-00035S-9F
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 06:51:29 -0500
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.177]:51091)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <berlios@weilnetz.de>) id 1L6kpk-0004qx-Jb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 06:51:29 -0500
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] ident=stefan)
	by flocke.weilnetz.de with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <berlios@weilnetz.de>) id 1L6kpb-0001Iu-9T
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:51:19 +0100
Message-ID: <49327E37.6050003@weilnetz.de>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:51:19 +0100
From: Stefan Weil <berlios@weilnetz.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add __noreturn function attribute
References: <492FDA5D.6080602@siemens.com>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0811282031360.2200@linmac.oyster.ru>	<493030EA.4040405@web.de>
	<49326633.9020007@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <49326633.9020007@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Avi Kivity schrieb:
> 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.
>
>
>

Why do we need a new macro instead of just using __attribute__
((__noreturn__))?

The macro won't save very much writing, needs an include dependency, breaks
code which uses the same symbol for other purposes, makes code reusage
in other
products more difficult, ...

Stefan