Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 11:11:05 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org>, David Chisnall <theraven@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r268137 - head/sys/sys Message-ID: <5586E219.2010805@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20150622012426.S2603@besplex.bde.org> References: <201407020845.s628jRG5031824@svn.freebsd.org> <5BE3492F-86A0-4CE3-A27C-8DB5EB662C64@FreeBSD.org> <55842F16.5040608@FreeBSD.org> <D58BE060-870A-4D5E-AE46-D915D9CD6A0C@FreeBSD.org> <20150620023835.N2562@besplex.bde.org> <55861046.4050501@FreeBSD.org> <20150621154332.U976@besplex.bde.org> <5586CBCE.2010608@FreeBSD.org> <20150622012426.S2603@besplex.bde.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 06/21/15 10:41, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jun 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > >> On 06/21/15 01:09, Bruce Evans wrote: >>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2015, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >> * ... >>>> With the patch we would use: >>>> >>>> __Noreturn void >>>> foo(void) _dead2; >>>> >>>> Which is still ugly but C11-ish. >>> >>> That asks for the same problems as defining __weak. >>> >>> Why not just don't use _Noreturn? It is an unimprovement on the gcc >>> attribute. The attribute works at the beginning or end, while Noreturn >>> only works at the end. >> >> As I see it, newer (C11) software is likely to use _Noreturn in their >> headers > > We can define _Noreturn to support this (but possibly shouldn't). > > The newer software many be pure C11. Then it doesn't need any > definition, > and just doesn't compile with non-C11 compilers. > Well, the fact this we just do this in the tree and no one has bothered to "clean" the situation for older compilers just indicates that no one *cares* about older compilers. > If we defined _Noreturn, it would be to use it in non-C11 software, like > we do in stdlib.h. This is a fragile compatibility hack so it should > be avoided if possible. We can easily avoid it in our own headers by > not changing anything. Just use the old declaration, with __dead2 placed > at the end. Any reasonable implementation of __attribute__() must be > able > to support any new attribute that a new standard might add. > The thing is, why bother with gnuisms at all? I am personally OK with making it easier for everyone to use more modern constructs but I am not going out of my way to support gcc-1 or gcc-2. Let's just admit it: the build is basically broken for older compilers and no one cares enough to fix them. (Not ideal, just what we have). Pedro.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5586E219.2010805>