From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 5 19:40:02 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E78671065695; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 19:40:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brde@optusnet.com.au) Received: from mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au [211.29.132.185]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 651B48FC1A; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 19:40:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c122-106-165-206.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au (c122-106-165-206.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [122.106.165.206]) by mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p05Jdw3n004391 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Jan 2011 06:39:59 +1100 Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 06:39:58 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@besplex.bde.org To: John Baldwin In-Reply-To: <201101051144.56940.jhb@freebsd.org> Message-ID: <20110106062530.Y1027@besplex.bde.org> References: <201101041316.p04DGSo6037042@svn.freebsd.org> <201101041314.08949.jhb@freebsd.org> <20110105161720.GA1388@a91-153-123-205.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <201101051144.56940.jhb@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, Jaakko Heinonen , svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Julian Elischer Subject: Re: svn commit: r216954 - head/sys/kern X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 19:40:03 -0000 On Wed, 5 Jan 2011, John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday, January 05, 2011 11:17:20 am Jaakko Heinonen wrote: >> On 2011-01-04, John Baldwin wrote: >>> Err, no, the point of NOTREACHED is to serve as documentation for lint(1), but >>> that has subsequently been obsoleted by __dead2. >> >> style(9) is out of date then? > > According to bde@'s most recent e-mails, yes. It's obviously out of date, since its only example of using NOTREACHED is after a usage() call, and this usage is missing a __dead2. Of course it doesn't use NOTREACHED after its 3 exit() calls or its 2 err() calls or its 1 errx() call, so its "should" requirement for using NOTREACHED is mostly not satisfied by itself. Bruce