Re: [PATCH] do not ignore attribute 'noreturn'...

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

 



On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Christopher Li <sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes, no return is kind of useful. I think we need to do some thing about the
> MOD_XXX eventually. It is very easy to run out of bits there.
>
Ah, the MOD_NORETURN is bigger than size of long in 32 bit systems.
I just get a few warning from GCC.

I just relocate the MOD_NORETURN bits.

Chris

diff --git a/symbol.h b/symbol.h
index 80ef363..9f5a32f 100644
--- a/symbol.h
+++ b/symbol.h
@@ -214,10 +214,10 @@ struct symbol {
 #define MOD_SAFE       0x8000000       // non-null/non-trapping pointer

 #define MOD_USERTYPE   0x10000000
+#define MOD_NORETURN   0x20000000
 #define MOD_EXPLICITLY_SIGNED  0x40000000
 #define MOD_BITWISE    0x80000000

-#define MOD_NORETURN   0x100000000

 #define MOD_NONLOCAL   (MOD_EXTERN | MOD_TOPLEVEL)
 #define MOD_STORAGE    (MOD_AUTO | MOD_REGISTER | MOD_STATIC | MOD_EXTERN | MOD
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Newbies FAQ]     [LKML]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Trinity Fuzzer Tool]

  Powered by Linux