Subject: Re: Problems with lint(1)
To: Christos Zoulas <>
From: Charles M. Hannum <mycroft@MIT.EDU>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 07/29/1998 20:37:08
>        - how do we deal with ARGSUSED/NOTREACHED? It would be nice to
>          be consistant and use a unified syntax for all lint annotations
>          instead of having a mixture of lint comments and __attribute__
>          statements.

The real issue with __noreturn__ is that it's also something that
compiler uses.  Currently we `have' to use *both* __noreturn__ and
NOTREACHED to shut up different warnings in gcc and lint.  This is
kind of silly.  Indeed, if lint(1) did better flow analysis, I'd have
to put a NOTREACHED after *every* call to a __noreturn__ function in
order to keep it quiet.