Re: [Toybox] __attribute__((__noreturn__)) vs _Noreturn

On 5/14/22 11:56, Ivo van Poorten wrote: > On Sat, 14 May 2022 04:31:24 -0500 Rob Landley wrote: >> On 5/11/22 11:55, Ivo van Poorten wrote: >> > https://github.com/rui314/chibicc >> >> Yeah, I saw your poke about that through the old qcc mailing list. :) > > Haha, wasn't sure if it was still

Re: [Toybox] __attribute__((__noreturn__)) vs _Noreturn

On Sat, 14 May 2022 04:31:24 -0500 Rob Landley wrote: > On 5/11/22 11:55, Ivo van Poorten wrote: > > https://github.com/rui314/chibicc > > Yeah, I saw your poke about that through the old qcc mailing list. :) Haha, wasn't sure if it was still read, so I thought I'd post a link here, too. Wider

Re: [Toybox] __attribute__((__noreturn__)) vs _Noreturn

On 5/11/22 11:55, Ivo van Poorten wrote: > On Wed, 11 May 2022 09:04:01 -0700 enh via Toybox > wrote: >> there's plenty of C++ in the GNU stuff these days; that's orthogonal. > > Yes. gcc cannot compile itself anymore without g++. I've noticed.

Re: [Toybox] __attribute__((__noreturn__)) vs _Noreturn

On 5/12/22 12:26, enh wrote: > > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 9:56 AM Rob Landley > wrote: > > On 5/11/22 11:10, enh wrote: > >> The next version of centos does not exist. Apparently Centos has > completely gone > >> away. Right, I can stop caring about

Re: [Toybox] __attribute__((__noreturn__)) vs _Noreturn

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 9:56 AM Rob Landley wrote: > On 5/11/22 11:10, enh wrote: > >> The next version of centos does not exist. Apparently Centos has > completely gone > >> away. Right, I can stop caring about it then I guess? > > > > (that was my reaction to the recent news, yes. "fine by

Re: [Toybox] __attribute__((__noreturn__)) vs _Noreturn

On 5/11/22 11:10, enh wrote: >> The next version of centos does not exist. Apparently Centos has completely >> gone >> away. Right, I can stop caring about it then I guess? > > (that was my reaction to the recent news, yes. "fine by me", since > centos was _always_ the most problematic distro to

Re: [Toybox] __attribute__((__noreturn__)) vs _Noreturn

On Wed, 11 May 2022 09:04:01 -0700 enh via Toybox wrote: > there's plenty of C++ in the GNU stuff these days; that's orthogonal. Yes. gcc cannot compile itself anymore without g++. chibicc looks promising. https://github.com/rui314/chibicc A book and all. But so did pcc (haven't heard much

Re: [Toybox] __attribute__((__noreturn__)) vs _Noreturn

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 8:40 AM Rob Landley wrote: > > On 5/10/22 17:08, enh wrote: > > attached two separate patches; one to move, the other to take > > advantage of the move. > > I'm reluctant to specify --std= because I've never had to before. When I > started > using c99 I didn't have to

Re: [Toybox] __attribute__((__noreturn__)) vs _Noreturn

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 7:32 AM Rob Landley wrote: > > On 5/10/22 13:00, enh wrote: > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 10:44 AM Rob Landley wrote: > >> > >> On 5/9/22 18:54, enh via Toybox wrote: > >> > i think this question already came up recently, but mainly as a joke > >> > before ... "how do you

Re: [Toybox] __attribute__((__noreturn__)) vs _Noreturn

On 5/10/22 17:08, enh wrote: > attached two separate patches; one to move, the other to take > advantage of the move. I'm reluctant to specify --std= because I've never had to before. When I started using c99 I didn't have to specify --std=c99, and we've leaked c11 features into the thing already

Re: [Toybox] __attribute__((__noreturn__)) vs _Noreturn

On 5/10/22 13:00, enh wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 10:44 AM Rob Landley wrote: >> >> On 5/9/22 18:54, enh via Toybox wrote: >> > i think this question already came up recently, but mainly as a joke >> > before ... "how do you feel about C11?" >> >> It's comfortably past the 7 year support

Re: [Toybox] __attribute__((__noreturn__)) vs _Noreturn

oh, and if you want to see the miscompile "in action", here's a godbolt link showing that [[noreturn]] and _Noreturn work in their respective languages, but __attribute__((__noreturn__)) is broken in C (but not C++!): https://godbolt.org/z/T6nMoa75G On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 3:08 PM enh wrote: > >

Re: [Toybox] __attribute__((__noreturn__)) vs _Noreturn

attached two separate patches; one to move, the other to take advantage of the move. given that `_Noreturn` is required to be at the start, i kind of wish they'd made it imply `void`; `noreturn void` seems a bit redundant! On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 11:00 AM enh wrote: > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at

Re: [Toybox] __attribute__((__noreturn__)) vs _Noreturn

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 10:44 AM Rob Landley wrote: > > On 5/9/22 18:54, enh via Toybox wrote: > > i think this question already came up recently, but mainly as a joke > > before ... "how do you feel about C11?" > > It's comfortably past the 7 year support horizon. I haven't got anything >

Re: [Toybox] __attribute__((__noreturn__)) vs _Noreturn

On 5/9/22 18:54, enh via Toybox wrote: > i think this question already came up recently, but mainly as a joke > before ... "how do you feel about C11?" It's comfortably past the 7 year support horizon. I haven't got anything against C11, I just haven't needed anything from it yet? Actually, I