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

Arnd Bergmann
2024-04-11T07:56:27Z

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, at 09:16, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> 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
>

It looks like it's all versions of gcc, though no versions
of clang show the warnings. I did a few more tests and could
not find any differences on actual code generation, but
I'd still feel more comfortable changing the caller than
the BUG() macro. It's trivial to add a 'return 0' there.

Another interesting observation is that clang-11 and earlier
versions end up skipping the endless loop, both with and
without the __builtin_unreachable, see
https://godbolt.org/z/aqa9zqz8x

clang-12 and above do work like gcc, so I guess that is good.

Arnd