Re: kill: Use __dead, declare functions static

2017-07-24 Thread Klemens Nanni
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 04:17:46PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > I know, this sounds silly. Isn't bringing the code up to modern standards > > part > > of maintaining it? > > I suppose that's my question: > > What is it about __dead that makes it part of "modern standards", when it > isn't

Re: kill: Use __dead, declare functions static

2017-07-24 Thread Klemens Nanni
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 06:11:32PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote: > Klemens Nanni wrote: > > usage() never returns, all functions are to be used within this unit > > only. > > > > Since changes are conflicting, I'll wait for this diff first, but I'd > > like to remove the void casts for fprintf and

Re: kill: Use __dead, declare functions static

2017-07-24 Thread Theo de Raadt
> > What is it about __dead that makes it part of "modern standards", when it > > isn't dead, and an actual keyword. __no_return isn't a standards mandated > > keyword either. > > The standard mandated spelling is _Noreturn or noreturn with > stdnoreturn.h. Just saying. You are wrong. OpenBSD

Re: kill: Use __dead, declare functions static

2017-07-24 Thread Theo de Raadt
> I know, this sounds silly. Isn't bringing the code up to modern standards part > of maintaining it? I suppose that's my question: What is it about __dead that makes it part of "modern standards", when it isn't dead, and an actual keyword. __no_return isn't a standards mandated keyword either.

Re: kill: Use __dead, declare functions static

2017-07-24 Thread Ted Unangst
Klemens Nanni wrote: > usage() never returns, all functions are to be used within this unit > only. > > Since changes are conflicting, I'll wait for this diff first, but I'd > like to remove the void casts for fprintf and use getprogname(3) over > __progname as well. > > Feedback? Comments? I

Re: kill: Use __dead, declare functions static

2017-07-24 Thread Theo de Raadt
No, I actually don't see the point. It isn't a natural of C. It isn't fixing any bugs. What is it helping? I don't see any help. It looks like meaningless churn. > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 03:27:05PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > this addiction to static is entirely pointless. > Consider it

Re: kill: Use __dead, declare functions static

2017-07-24 Thread Klemens Nanni
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 03:27:05PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > this addiction to static is entirely pointless. Consider it a matter of taste and leave it out, then. I assume you're fine with __dead, though? Index: kill.c === RCS

Re: kill: Use __dead, declare functions static

2017-07-24 Thread Theo de Raadt
this addiction to static is entirely pointless.

kill: Use __dead, declare functions static

2017-07-24 Thread Klemens Nanni
usage() never returns, all functions are to be used within this unit only. Since changes are conflicting, I'll wait for this diff first, but I'd like to remove the void casts for fprintf and use getprogname(3) over __progname as well. Feedback? Comments? Index: kill.c