Re: [PATCH] rtems: Improve RTEMS_NO_RETURN attribute

2020-10-06 Thread Sebastian Huber
On 06/10/2020 17:55, Joel Sherrill wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 10:41 AM Sebastian Huber > wrote: On 06/10/2020 17:34, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:46 AM Sebastian Huber > mailto:sebastian.hu...@embedded-brain

Re: [PATCH] rtems: Improve RTEMS_NO_RETURN attribute

2020-10-06 Thread Joel Sherrill
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 10:41 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 06/10/2020 17:34, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:46 AM Sebastian Huber > > > > wrote: > > > > On 06/10/2020 16:37, Joel Sherril

Re: [PATCH] rtems: Improve RTEMS_NO_RETURN attribute

2020-10-06 Thread Sebastian Huber
On 06/10/2020 17:34, Joel Sherrill wrote: On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:46 AM Sebastian Huber > wrote: On 06/10/2020 16:37, Joel Sherrill wrote: > How does it break the API? It looks like a change of annotation. > Shouldn't be a big deal unl

Re: [PATCH] rtems: Improve RTEMS_NO_RETURN attribute

2020-10-06 Thread Joel Sherrill
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 9:46 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 06/10/2020 16:37, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > How does it break the API? It looks like a change of annotation. > > Shouldn't be a big deal unless I am misunderstanding something. > > Please have a look

Re: [PATCH] rtems: Improve RTEMS_NO_RETURN attribute

2020-10-06 Thread Sebastian Huber
On 06/10/2020 16:37, Joel Sherrill wrote: How does it break the API? It looks like a change of annotation. Shouldn't be a big deal unless I am misunderstanding something. Please have a look at: https://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/devel/2020-October/062577.html _

Re: [PATCH] rtems: Improve RTEMS_NO_RETURN attribute

2020-10-06 Thread Joel Sherrill
How does it break the API? It looks like a change of annotation. Shouldn't be a big deal unless I am misunderstanding something. On Tue, Oct 6, 2020, 9:28 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 06/10/2020 15:09, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > This looks OK. Push it. > Pl

Re: [PATCH] rtems: Improve RTEMS_NO_RETURN attribute

2020-10-06 Thread Sebastian Huber
On 06/10/2020 15:09, Joel Sherrill wrote: This looks OK. Push it. Please have a look at v2 of the patch. It is an API breaking change. ___ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [PATCH] rtems: Improve RTEMS_NO_RETURN attribute

2020-10-06 Thread Joel Sherrill
This looks OK. Push it. On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 1:06 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > Provide RTEMS_NO_RETURN also in case RTEMS_DEBUG is defined to prevent > errors > like this: > > error: no return statement in function returning non-void > [-Werror=return-type]

Re: [PATCH] rtems: Improve RTEMS_NO_RETURN attribute

2020-10-06 Thread Sebastian Huber
On 06/10/2020 08:06, Sebastian Huber wrote: Provide RTEMS_NO_RETURN also in case RTEMS_DEBUG is defined to prevent errors like this: error: no return statement in function returning non-void [-Werror=return-type] Use C11 and C++11 standard means to declare a no-return function. Close #4122. S

[PATCH] rtems: Improve RTEMS_NO_RETURN attribute

2020-10-05 Thread Sebastian Huber
Provide RTEMS_NO_RETURN also in case RTEMS_DEBUG is defined to prevent errors like this: error: no return statement in function returning non-void [-Werror=return-type] Use C11 and C++11 standard means to declare a no-return function. Close #4122. --- cpukit/include/rtems/score/basedefs.h | 8 +