Re: [PATCH] bug: Fix no-return-statement warning with !CONFIG_BUG

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


Le 11/04/2024 à 09:16, Adrian Hunter a écrit :
> On 11/04/24 10:04, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024, at 17:32, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>> BUG() does not return, and arch implementations of BUG() use unreachable()
>>> or other non-returning code. However with !CONFIG_BUG, the default
>>> implementation is often used instead, and that does not do that. x86 always
>>> uses its own implementation, but powerpc with !CONFIG_BUG gives a build
>>> error:
>>>    kernel/time/timekeeping.c: In function ‘timekeeping_debug_get_ns’:
>>>    kernel/time/timekeeping.c:286:1: error: no return statement in function
>>>    returning non-void [-Werror=return-type]
>>> Add unreachable() to default !CONFIG_BUG BUG() implementation.
>> I'm a bit worried about this patch, since we have had problems
>> with unreachable() inside of BUG() in the past, and as far as I
>> can remember, the current version was the only one that
>> actually did the right thing on all compilers.
>> One problem with an unreachable() annotation here is that if
>> a compiler misanalyses the endless loop, it can decide to
>> throw out the entire code path leading up to it and just
>> run into undefined behavior instead of printing a BUG()
>> message.
>> Do you know which compiler version show the warning above?
> Original report has a list

Looking at the report, I think the correct fix should be to use 
BUILD_BUG() instead of BUG()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux