> On Feb. 13, 2012, 11:30 a.m., David Faure wrote: > > Out of curiosity, if the method returns void anyway, why is this attribute > > necessary? It's not like the the compiler is going to warn about the lack > > of a return value... > > Allen Winter wrote: > From the GNU Compiler documentation: "The noreturn keyword tells the > compiler to assume that fatal cannot return. It can then optimize without > regard to what would happen if fatal ever did return. This makes slightly > better code. More importantly, it helps avoid spurious warnings of > uninitialized variables." > > From my point-of-view, I just want something that can shutup compiler > warnings > > Allen Winter wrote: > ping?
It is a very niche use case, but probably makes sense to have, though you'd have to commit it carefully so that it goes into 4.9 given that we don't have a proper 4.9 branch, no? - Albert ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103832/#review10589 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 31, 2012, 8:58 p.m., Allen Winter wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103832/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 31, 2012, 8:58 p.m.) > > > Review request for kdelibs. > > > Description > ------- > > This diff adds a new macro KDE_NO_RETURN that wraps the noreturn attribute > which is enabled differently based on the compiler. > > > Diffs > ----- > > kdemacros.h.cmake b93242c > > Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103832/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > did a test compile > > > Thanks, > > Allen Winter > >
