abort() missing return-address => useless core file

[Grant Edwards]

On 2011-11-23, Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal.cx> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:35:24PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
>> at this point, you're just wasting people's time.  uClibc is not broken.  
>> you're barking up the wrong tree.
>
>
> This sounds unsettlingly drepperesque...

Just to recap:

We asked that the "noreturn" attribute be removed from abort() so that
core files contain sufficient info for getting a bactrace...

  No, it's too much bloat.

It turns out the increase in code size is negligible...

  No, it will cause compiler warnings because gcc won't know that
  abort() never returns.

It turns out that's not true...

  Go away.

Sorry if I stepped on somebody's toes, but I thought it seemed like a
reasonable request.  AFAICT, GCC is the only toolchain that uClibc is
used with, and ARM is by far the most popular embedded Linux
architecture, so I presumed that making uClibc play well with gcc/ARM
would be A Good Thing(TM).