On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "The" warning? Not "the two" warnings? Then I suggest to stop here; MSVC > is only half-competent with regards to noreturn. There was only one warning in this regard on MSVC - the one about unreachable code. And yes, MSVC is only half-competent, but it seems it's competence is in the half that matters in our case. Do you suggest to stop the patch-series, or to stop the testing? I'd prefer having NORETURN for die() etc in MSVC-builds, as it allows the compiler to generate better code. I'm prefectly fine about not having NORETURN for the function pointers. GCC should be competent enough to catch (very theoretical) errors, and we get the nice speed-improvement on MSVC. I don't see the down-side. -- Erik "kusma" Faye-Lund kusmabite@xxxxxxxxx (+47) 986 59 656 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html