[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46A786C7.9020604@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:22:15 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jeremy@...p.org,
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()
Al Viro wrote:
> 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)...
I thought gcc was buggy when it came to passing &&labels to assembly.
-hpa
-
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