On 6/15/21 6:38 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 6/15/21 5:32 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 4:58 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Some implementations of BUG() are macros, not functions,
>>
>> Not "some", I think. Most.
>>
>>> so "unreachable" is not applicable AFAIK.
>>
>> Sure it is. One common pattern is the x86 one:
>>
>> #define BUG() \
>> do { \
>> instrumentation_begin(); \
>> _BUG_FLAGS(ASM_UD2, 0); \
>> unreachable(); \
>> } while (0)
>
> duh.
>
>> and that "unreachable()" is exactly what I'm talking about.
>>
>> So I repeat: what completely broken compiler / config / architecture
>> is it that needs that "return 0" after a BUG() statement?
>
> I have seen it on ia64 -- most likely GCC 9.3.0, but I'll have to
> double check that.
Nope, I cannot repro that now. I'll check a few more arches...
>> Because that environment is broken, and the warning is bogus and wrong.
>>
>> It might not be the compiler. It might be some architecture that does
>> this wrong. It might be some very particular configuration that does
>> something bad and makes the "unreachable()" not work (or not exist).
>>
>> But *that* is the bug that should be fixed. Not adding a pointless and
>> incorrect line that makes no sense, just to hide the real bug.
--
~Randy
