... > Whereas we already provide an abort() function because iirc the > compiler used to emit branches to that due to noreturn functions. If > correct, there's previous convention for doing this - and abort() is > still exists in the kernel and in userspace since it's part of ANSI > C. This would be a more reliable and portable solution, but probably > not for embedded platforms - and that's probably why it got removed. Wouldn't you want it to do a 'bl abort' so that you could do a backtrace to find out which 'noreturn' function had returned? But that leaves you with another 'noreturn' function that you have difficulty generating a backtrace from. So you'd need a compiler option to specify what to put there. I'd suspect linux would like something that generates an 'undefined instruction' trap - since that would be expected to fault with the saved PC pointing to the instruction itself (but architectures may vary). 'One size' definitely doesn't 'fit all' :-) David - Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
