From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:54843 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756434AbXGXRbr (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:31:47 -0400 Message-ID: <46A636BB.7020706@zytor.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:28:27 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] getting rid of stupid loop in BUG() References: <20070724153916.GS21668@ftp.linux.org.uk> <46A62F35.2000501@goop.org> <20070724171455.GT21668@ftp.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20070724171455.GT21668@ftp.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Al Viro Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Al Viro wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 09:56:21AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: >> Al Viro wrote: >>> AFAICS, the patch below should do it for i386; instead of >>> using a dummy loop to tell gcc that this sucker never returns, >>> we do >>> static void __always_inline __noreturn __BUG(const char *file, int line); >>> containing the actual asm we want to insert and define BUG() as >>> __BUG(__FILE__, __LINE__). It looks safe, but I don't claim enough >>> experience with gcc __asm__ potential nastiness, so... >>> >>> Comments, objections? >>> >> Does it work? When I wrote the BUG code I tried this, but gcc kept >> warning about "noreturn function returns". I couldn't work out a way to >> convince gcc that the asm is the end of the line. > > Works here... Could it be a gcc version difference? -hpa