[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090911225228.e67460f5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:52:28 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, jakub@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] UNREACHABLE() macro
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:43:42 -0700 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org> wrote:
> On 09/11/2009 08:49 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
> > Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> That's a bit of a mouthful. Did you consider a runtime probe with
> >>> scripts/Kbuild.include's try-run, cc-option, etc?
> >>
> >> I did not see any precedent in the sources for using those to test for
> >> features by compiling particular test sources (i.e. in autoconf
> >
> > look at the stackprotector flags.. they work this way already.
> > It gets done once per kernel build...
> >
>
> That works for flags, but not for the presence of builtin functions.
> You can't even just try compiling something, since it will turn into an
> ordinary function if not present... not obvious until link.
>
Use -Wall -Werror and if the compiler doesn't know about
__builtin_unreachable() it will error out.
--
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