On 2012-04-26 17:56 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2012-04-26 09:15:53 -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > > On 04/26/2012 09:02 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2012-04-26 08:14:51 -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > > >> Correct. _Noreturn is an optimization hint; your code will still > > >> function correctly if the specifier is not present. The gnulib choice > > >> to define it away on problematic systems is intentional. > > > > > > If I understand the gnulib code, gnulib defines it away also on pure > > > C11 implementations (and not complete implementations that understand > > > _Noreturn), which are not problematic systems! > > > > You missed an aspect - gnulib only provides a replacement > > <stdnoreturn.h> header on non-C11 systems; on systems where the system > > header is compliant, there is no need for gnulib to interject a > > replacement. Therefore, under C11, gnulib is not defining anything away. > > Ah, OK. > > But I think that <stdnoreturn.h> is not a solution for MPFR, due to > the potential clashes with GMP (on which we depend), which uses GCC's > __attribute__ ((noreturn)). Though this may be fixed in the future, > problems would still appear with older versions. Thus we should use > _Noreturn directly, when supported. Another alternative is to simply make sure that you always include the GMP headers before including <stdnoreturn.h>. Cheers, -- Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/) _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
