I see, thanks Andrew.

Anyone else have opinions on this besides Liu or Andrew? The responses have
been surprisingly quiet thus far

best regards,
Julian

On Wed, 5 Jul 2023, 09:40 Andrew Pinski, <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 6:32 PM Julian Waters <tanksherman27@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andrew, thanks for the quick response,
> >
> > What if the method has a return value? I know it sounds
> counterintuitive, but in some places HotSpot relies on the noreturn
> attribute being applied to methods that do return a value in an unreachable
> code path. Does the unreachable builtin cover that case too?
>
> It is wrong to use noreturn on a function other than one which has a
> return type of void as documented.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html#index-noreturn-function-attribute
> :
> ```
> It does not make sense for a noreturn function to have a return type
> other than void.
> ```
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew Pinski
>
>
> >
> > best regards.
> > Julian
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 9:07 AM Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 5:54 PM Julian Waters via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > Currently to disable the warning that a noreturn method does return,
> it's
> >> > required to disable warnings entirely. This can be very inconvenient
> when
> >> > -Werror is enabled with a noreturn method that isn't specifically
> calling
> >> > something like std::abort() at the end, when one wants all other
> -Wall and
> >> > -Wextra warnings to be reported, for instance in the Java HotSpot VM
> (which
> >> > I'm currently adapting to compile with gcc on all supported
> platforms). Is
> >> > there a possibility we can add a disable warning option specifically
> for
> >> > this case? Something like -Wno-returning-noreturn. I'm interested in
> adding
> >> > this myself if it's not convenient for gcc's maintainers to do so at
> the
> >> > moment, but I'd need some guidance on where to look and what the
> relevant
> >> > code is
> >>
> >> You could just add
> >> __builtin_unreachable(); (or std::unreachable(); if you are C++23 or
> >> unreachable() if you are using C23).
> >> Or even add while(true) ;
> >>
> >> I am pretty sure not having an option is on purpose and not really
> >> interested in adding an option here because of the above workarounds.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Andrew Pinski
> >>
> >> >
> >> > best regards,
> >> > Julian
>