https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10837
--- Comment #30 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Lukas Grätz from comment #29) > (In reply to Josh Haberman from comment #25) > > As a result, I now agree with you that `musttail` addresses the complaint in > > this bug. While it is odd and unexpected that `noreturn` will inhibit tail > > calls, I agree that `musttail` appears to override this behavior, providing > > an escape hatch for users who want tail calls on `noreturn` functions. > > > > It is somewhat unfortunate that this requires the attribute to be at every > > call site, instead of on the `noreturn` function itself, but at least it > > is > > possible. > > Having a musttail attribute on the signature of the noreturn function itself > is probably not a good idea, if you think about it more. Take the function > abort(): If you want to change the signature, you need to change the > standard library headers. And if you wrote a noreturn function like temp2() > yourself, it is still not a good idea to force musttail on it, I would say. > Because this is a big restriction on how your function can be called. No, musttail is a statement attribute, not function attribute. Thus you add it at the statement calling abort(), not the system header.
