[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100713181212.GB20289@feather>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:12:13 -0700
From: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To: Chris Li <christ.li@...il.com>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, jirislaby@...il.com,
Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] parser: define __builtin_unreachable
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:52:48AM -0700, Chris Li wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org> wrote:
> > __builtin_unreachable has special semantics beyond just a function.
> > This definition will suffice to allow compilation, but
> > __builtin_unreachable should have the same effect in sparse that it does
> > in GCC: mark the point (and the remainder of the basic block) as
> > unreachable. Something like the mechanism used for handling noreturn
> > would work here as well; declaring the function to have attribute
> > noreturn would probably have almost the right semantics.
> >
>
> The attribute noreturn will apply to the whole function. The function
> NEVER returns.
> __builtin_unreachable only apply to current basic block. e.g. some
> error handling path like panic. The function can still return a value on the
> normal path. It has different meaning than attribute noreturn. So I don't think
> automatically give the function noreturn attribute is the right thing to do.
No, I didn't mean that using __builtin_unreachable should mark the
function calling it as noreturn. I meant that as an approximation to
the right behavior, __builtin_unreachable *itself* could have attribute
noreturn.
- Josh Triplett
--
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