From: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: Convert BUG() to use unreachable()
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:58:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091216135849.GC3674@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B213627.5000007@caviumnetworks.com>
Hallo,
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 09:55:51AM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 10:55:38AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> Use the new unreachable() macro instead of for(;;);
>>
>> Have you investigated what effect this has on generated code?
>
> Yes.
>
> Pre GCC-4.5 the generated code should be identical as 'unreachable()'
> just expands to 'for(;;);' in this case.
>
> Post GCC-4.5 the generated code should be smaller.
I don't have a toolchain using gcc 4.5.
What should we do with this patch? I think in theory the patch is OK.
And for pre gcc-4.5 it should not make any difference as we have in
include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h:
#if __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 5
...
#define unreachable() __builtin_unreachable()
#endif
and in include/linux/compiler.h:
#ifndef unreachable
# define unreachable() do { } while (1)
#endif
So the only impact if that
do { } while (1)
is used instead of
for(;;)
. My toolchain (based on 4.3.2) produces the same object files with and
without the patch.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-16 13:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-08 9:55 [PATCH] ARM: Convert BUG() to use unreachable() Uwe Kleine-König
2009-12-08 17:07 ` David Daney
2009-12-10 17:50 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2009-12-10 17:55 ` David Daney
2009-12-16 13:58 ` Uwe Kleine-König [this message]
2009-12-17 15:01 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-12-17 17:09 ` David Daney
2009-12-17 17:17 ` Richard Guenther
2009-12-17 18:17 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2009-12-17 18:35 ` Joe Buck
2009-12-17 19:06 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2009-12-17 19:14 ` Joe Buck
2009-12-17 19:33 ` David Daney
2009-12-17 19:33 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2009-12-17 19:38 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-12-17 19:48 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2009-12-17 19:58 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2009-12-17 19:04 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-12-21 19:30 ` Richard Henderson
2009-12-21 20:10 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2009-12-22 14:09 ` Dave Korn
2009-12-22 14:12 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2009-12-22 14:49 ` Dave Korn
2009-12-22 11:33 ` Paolo Bonzini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091216135849.GC3674@pengutronix.de \
--to=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
--cc=ddaney@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox