On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:55 PM, David Daney <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The subject says it all (most). The only drawback here is that for a
> pre-GCC-5.4 compiler, instead of expanding to nothing we now expand
> BUG() to an endless loop. Before the patch when configured with
> !CONFIG_BUG() you might get some warnings, but the code would be
> small. After the patch there are no warnings, but there is an endless
> loop at each BUG() site.
>
> Of course for the GCC-4.5 case we get the best of both worlds.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Daney <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Suggested-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/asm-generic/bug.h | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bug.h b/include/asm-generic/bug.h
> index 4b67559..e952242 100644
> --- a/include/asm-generic/bug.h
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/bug.h
> @@ -89,11 +89,11 @@ extern void warn_slowpath_null(const char *file, const int line);
>
> #else /* !CONFIG_BUG */
> #ifndef HAVE_ARCH_BUG
> -#define BUG() do {} while(0)
> +#define BUG() unreachable()
> #endif
>
> #ifndef HAVE_ARCH_BUG_ON
> -#define BUG_ON(condition) do { if (condition) ; } while(0)
> +#define BUG_ON(condition) do { if (condition) unreachable(); } while (0)
> #endif
>
> #ifndef HAVE_ARCH_WARN_ON
> --
This seems wrong to me. Wouldn't you always want to do the endless
loop? In the absence of an arch-specific method to jump to an
exception handler, it isn't really unreachable. On gcc 4.5 this would
essentially become a no-op.
--
Brian Gerst
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
