On 08/18/2011 11:37 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
C1X provides a standard way of declaring non-returning functions, with the _Noreturn keyword and a header stdnoreturn.h defining a macro "noreturn" to expand to _Noreturn. This patch implements this syntax and header. Bootstrapped with no regressions on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Applied to mainline.I didn't touch the USER_H definition in mips/t-sdemtk (so that target will not install this new header). The comment "Remove stdarg.h and stddef.h from USER_H." suggests that maybe it should be added to that definition, but stdfix.h is also missing from that definition. As far as I know MIPS is no longer using the old SDE library and it is considered superseded by newlib, so perhaps that configuration (mips*-sde-elf* without newlib) should actually be deprecated/removed (and "mipssde" threads along with it). The new keyword is C-only (C++0x has a different way of declaring non-returning functions) and I did not try to make the header do anything useful if included in C++ code. 2011-08-18 Joseph Myers<jos...@codesourcery.com> * c-decl.c (shadow_tag_warned): Check for _Noreturn. (quals_from_declspecs): Assert _Noreturn not present. (grokdeclarator): Handle _Noreturn. (build_null_declspecs): Initialize noreturn_p. (declspecs_add_scspec): Handle RID_NORETURN. * c-parser.c (c_token_starts_declspecs, c_parser_declspecs) (c_parser_attributes): Handle RID_NORETURN. * c-tree.h (struct c_declspecs): Add noreturn_p. * ginclude/stdnoreturn.h: New. * Makefile.in (USER_H): Add stdnoreturn.h. c-family: 2011-08-18 Joseph Myers<jos...@codesourcery.com> * c-common.c (c_common_reswords): Add _Noreturn. (keyword_is_function_specifier): Handle RID_NORETURN. * c-common.h (RID_NORETURN): New. testsuite: 2011-08-18 Joseph Myers<jos...@codesourcery.com> * gcc.dg/c1x-noreturn-1.c, gcc.dg/c1x-noreturn-2.c, gcc.dg/c1x-noreturn-3.c, gcc.dg/c1x-noreturn-4.c, gcc.dg/c1x-noreturn-5.c: New tests.
Would it make any sense to accept _Noreturn as an alternative spelling for the __noreturn__ attribute, in case someone is using the non-underscore-wrapped variant?
Thanks, Paolo
