Re: [PATCH 2/3] Add a lot of dummy returns to avoid warnings with NO_NORETURN

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 02:17:32PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>> > From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > Add a lot of dummy returns to silence "control flow reaches
>> > end of non void function" warnings with disabled noreturn.
>> >
>> > If NO_NORETURN is not disabled they will be all optimized away.
>> 
>> I think this is probably a bad move, given that the previous patch is a
>
> This is basically the patch you suggested. Do you have some other suggestion 
> now?

Sorry, I do not recall suggesting to add these dummy returns. The NO_NORETURN
workaround (your [1/3]) is what I remember.

>> these will introduce noise for build without NO_NORETURN (either when
>> profile feedback is not used, or when profile feedback build is in use and
>> it no longer requires the NO_NORETURN workaround).
>
> I fixed the noise in a followon patch. 

I suspect that we are talking about different warnings.

The extra unreachable returns this patch adds will introduce more
"unreachable code" warnings, which was what my message you are responding
to is about.

While I agree with you that this patch will now squelch "control flow
reaches end of non void function" warnings (which is your justification
for this patch), I am just pointing out that it is like robbing Peter to
pay Paul.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]