Re: [PATCH 2/2] remove NORETURN from function pointers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Erik Faye-Lund schrieb:
>> 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?
>
> My suggestion was about stopping the patch series.
>
> But thinking a bit more about it, I can imagine that there are calls to
> die() that, if it is not marked noreturn, could trigger other warnings
> with MSVC. That would be annoying, and it's better to mark it noreturn.
>
> So I withdraw my suggestion to stop :-)

Anything happened to this series?
--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]