Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, David Daney wrote:
The existing code just falls through to whatever happens to follow the BUG().
Brian was talking BUG_ON().
And the existing !CONFIG_BUG BUG_ON() is actually set up so that gcc will
just optimize it away entirely (yet give the same compile-time warnings as
the "real" BUG_ON() does).
Changing it to "if (cond) unreachable()" is likely to generate _more_
code, which is against the whole point of wanting to disable CONFIG_BUG.
Yes, you are correct. I said the same thing in the log message for the
patch.
Really it may be too early for this patch to be appropriate for your
tree. GCC-4.5 will probably not be released for several more months,
and it will be several years before a GCC with __builtin_unreachable()
is being used by the majority of people compiling kernels.
Ingo had suggested the approach of this patch as a way of eliminating
many warnings when using !CONFIG_BUG. I think it clearly makes sense
for compilers that support __builtin_unreachable(), but clearly it is
not an unquestionable win if we end up generating larger code.
With this particular patch, I don't really care if you merge it or not.
Perhaps I shouldn't have made it part of the set.
The rest of the set I think would make sense for 2.6.32 or 2.6.33.
David Daney
--
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
