Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: March 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#3427) Remove noreturn attribute
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#3427) Remove noreturn attribute

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#3427) Remove noreturn attribute
From: "Raimar Falke" <rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:49:42 -0800
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:45:48AM -0800, Reinier Post wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:14:37AM -0800, Raimar Falke wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:13:39AM -0800, Jason Short wrote:
> > > Raimar Falke wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:19:18AM -0800, Reinier Post wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Next version without variadic arguments. Tested with gcc and icc6.
> > > 
> > > > +#define die(format, args...)    \
> > > > +  do{                           \
> > > > +    real_die(format , ## args); \
> > > > +    exit(EXIT_FAILURE);         \
> > > > +  } while(0)
> > > > +
> > > 
> > > Um, those are variadic arguments.
> > 
> > *reading* Yes. __VA_ARGS__ is the version from C99. "## args" is the
> > gcc extension.
> > 
> > So since we don't want/can require a C99 compiler I will propose again
> > my first fix.
> > 
> >     Raimar
> 
> I do not understand.  Neither are C89 compliant.
> We have variadic arguments of functions in the code already.
> Keep Freeciv C89 compliant as long as you don't have an actual reason
> to break it.  BTW I think it's ridiculous to use macros for cases
> like this.

I'm speaking about noreturn1.diff from the first mail in this
thread/issue. This change will even work with a K&R compiler.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "There are three ways to get something done. Do it yourself, hire someone
  to do it for you or forbid your kids to do it."




[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]