Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Breaking the standard is what brings us the joys of recently (re)posted
patch for NetBSD and [u]intXX fun.
I have no problem with calling it 'noreturn' instead.
That will break code that wants to use 'noreturn' as a local variable.
I think ATTR_NORETURN, while a lot uglier, is safer.
Do you have such code already? Is it exported beyond qemu scope? Then
why not going for our own convention "'noreturn' is reserved as function
attribute"? (And yes, your macro is ugly :) ).
"Macro names should be in upper case" is also a useful convention.
Generally yes. But there are exceptions when the macro is used in a
context where upper case disturbs the readability instead of improving
it. I would argue that this is the case here, but it's always a matter
of taste.
FWIW, I agree with Stefan, there's currently not much need to isolate
gcc-isms.
If everyone prefers having __attribute__ in the function prototypes
directly -- OK. All I want is to get rid of the warnings without
changing the code into the wrong direction.