On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:35 AM, Sebastian Huber <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 2014-02-13 16:30, Gedare Bloom wrote: >> >> I like the simplification. We should also clean up any BSPs that have >> dead code beyond calling boot_card(). > > > Yes, but this has not a high priority. > > >> >> Does it make sense to add noreturn attributes to the initialization >> call path starting with boot_card through >> rtems_initialize_start_multitasking()? > > > Its already there: > > http://git.rtems.org/rtems/commit/?id=48bff53b3dec885085b87db413329830110c9bb0 > Ah, it is OK to only put it at the function declaration? Does it hurt to replicate the noreturn statement in the function definition? I think it can be more obvious to someone who reads the code.
> -- > Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH > > Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany > Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16 > Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09 > E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de > PGP : Public key available on request. > > Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG. _______________________________________________ rtems-devel mailing list rtems-devel@rtems.org http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
