[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bison-3.1.91 released [beta]
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: bison-3.1.91 released [beta] |
Date: |
Tue, 23 Oct 2018 17:01:13 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 |
On 10/22/18 8:42 AM, Akim Demaille wrote:
This is coming from gnulib. Could you submit your patch there?
I don’t know how they handle _Noreturn.
In Gnulib, _Noreturn is for function declarations and definitions,
whereas __attribute_noreturn__ is for pointed-to functions (i.e., for
function types that are targets of pointers). The distinction is needed
partly because _Noreturn is a C11-ism and should be portable to any C11
compiler, whereas __attribute_noreturn__ is a GCC-ism and should work
with both non-C11 and C11 GCCs.
So from the Gnulib point of view, the patch
-static _Noreturn void
+static __attribute_noreturn__ void
print_and_abort (void)
seems like it's heading in the wrong direction. However, I don't fully
grok the original bug report so it's possible I'm missing something. Was
the compiler in question GCC, or something else? What version and platform?
- bison-3.1.90 released [beta], Akim Demaille, 2018/10/17
- Re: bison-3.1.91 released [beta], Derek Clegg, 2018/10/21
- Re: bison-3.1.91 released [beta], Akim Demaille, 2018/10/22
- Re: bison-3.1.91 released [beta], Akim Demaille, 2018/10/23
- Re: bison-3.1.91 released [beta], Akim Demaille, 2018/10/23
- Re: bison-3.1.91 released [beta], Paul Eggert, 2018/10/23
- Re: bison-3.1.91 released [beta], Akim Demaille, 2018/10/24
- Re: bison-3.1.91 released [beta], Akim Demaille, 2018/10/24