Sean Hunt <ride...@gmail.com> writes: > void foo () __attribute__((noreturn)); // right per spec > void foo __attribute__((noreturn)) (); // works > __attribute__((noreturn)) void foo (); // works > > It's obvious that the first example of each kind (noreturn appearing > after the function declarator) must be accepted if it's a GCC > attribute and not if it's a C++0x attributes. The later two (noreturn > appearing before the declaration or after the identifier) must be > accepted for C++0x attributes, but it's not clear if the GCC syntax > being accepted is an accident or by design.
As far as I can see they are both documenated as working at http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.5.0/gcc/Attribute-Syntax.html , so I think it is by design. > Is anyone currently working on C++0x attributes in GCC and, if not, is > there anyone who can help me through what we should and shouldn't > accept in clang? I don't know the answer to this. It's clear that C++0x attributes are not the same as GNU attributes. Ian
