Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!princeton!allegra!ulysses!bellcore!whuxcc!lcuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew
From: aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <2600073@ccvaxa>
Date: Fri, 15-Aug-86 12:51:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.2600073
Posted: Fri Aug 15 12:51:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Aug-86 09:24:14 EDT
References: <273@watmath.UUCP>
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #R:watmath.UUCP:273:ccvaxa:2600073:000:926
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!aglew    Aug 15 11:51:00 1986


>I was trying to declare "typedef void dead;" so that I could distinguish
>between functions that return nothing (void perror(char *), setbuf(FILE *,
>char *), nullf(void)) from those that don't return (dead exit(int),
>abort(void), longjmp(jmp_buf, int)).  Again, it's a small quibble; I'll
>just use #define instead.
>
>Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!ima!haddock!karl), The Walking Lint

Good point, though - an optimizing compiler could take advantage of
knowledge that a function doesn't return to do better register allocation,
etc. Should this be in the langauge, or is a convention like

    if( error_condition ) {
	exit(1);
	/*NOTREACHED*/
    }

enough? (Rhetorical question: obviously, you should specify it at the point
of declaration of such a function, not at the point of use.)

Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana.    USEnet:  ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew
1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801    ARPAnet: aglew@gswd-vms