[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070725171956.GF27237@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:19:56 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jeremy@...p.org, hpa@...or.com,
kaos@....com.au, xyzzy@...akeasy.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] getting rid of stupid loop in BUG()
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 09:56:12AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
> > Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:24:55 -0700
> >
> > > H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > > How far back was __builtin_trap() supported?
> > >
> > > I think its relatively recent, but it might be within our supported
> > > compiler window.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure it is.
>
> .. and I'm pretty sure it's immaterial.
>
> We don't just do the "ud2" instruction - we also do the file and line
> number information after it. Which means that __builtin_trap() is useless.
>
> So we might as well keep the loop, since both are two-byte instructions
> that tell gcc that it will never continue.
Umm... Actually, we might be able to do something like
{
l: __builtin_trap();
static struct ... v __attribute__((section(...))) = { &&l, n, file };
}
except that it would need block-local labels and those are ugly (so's
&&<label>, while we are at it)...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists