Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:38:47 +0200 From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@britannica.bec.de> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: Xin LI <delphij@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r287217 - head/usr.sbin/syslogd Message-ID: <20150828143847.GA24222@britannica.bec.de> In-Reply-To: <20150828215109.G1227@besplex.bde.org> References: <201508271811.t7RIB0xl077002@repo.freebsd.org> <20150828215109.G1227@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:17:56PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > >-static void die(int); > >+static void die(int) __dead2; > > Since the function is static, it is very easy for the compiler to see > that it doesn't return. But the compiler can't tell if it is the *intention* that the function never returns. The warning behavior exists because that can easily change with macros etc. > Even gcc-4.2.1 does this by default, since > -O implies -funit-at-a-time for gcc-4.2.1. For clang, there is no way > to prevent this (except possibly -O0) since, since -fno-unit-at-a-time > is broken in clang. It is not broken. It is loadly ignored as unsupported. The very existance of the option in GCC has always been a concession to broken and badly written code, including of course GCC's own CRT. Joerg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150828143847.GA24222>