[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTimXYaf_14VbB6ex0kG6sPnTUfzu6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:33:50 -0400
From: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>, hpa@...or.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, vsyscall: Fix build warning in vsyscall_64.c
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>> >
>> > I think correctness trumps code size and turning BUG() and BUG_ON()
>> > into a NOP is just crazy ...
>>
>> Umm. It's even CRAZIER to turn it into a "compiler generates random code".
>
> Sigh, i assumed it got turned into an infinite loop - that is what
> i've done in a prior patch.
>
> You are right, unreachable() is bogus and you'd also be right to
> suggest that i should not comment on patches after 11pm ;-)
What we want is a magic GCC trick that says "don't warn about code
paths that go through here but generate the same code as you would
without this annotation." I don't think such a thing exists.
--Andy
--
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