From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1762270AbXGXRH2@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1762270AbXGXRH2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:07:28 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761291AbXGXRHN
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:07:13 -0400
Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:52838 "EHLO
	terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753161AbXGXRHL (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:07:11 -0400
Message-ID: <46A630EF.5050403@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:03:43 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070419)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
CC: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] getting rid of stupid loop in BUG()
References: <20070724153916.GS21668@ftp.linux.org.uk> <46A62F35.2000501@goop.org>
In-Reply-To: <46A62F35.2000501@goop.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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.
> 
> I'm actually in favour of dropping the loop and the noreturn stuff
> altogether.  It means that gcc thinks everything is live at the time of
> the BUG, and the debugging info at the point of the ud2a is more useful.

How much code would that add to the kernel?

	-hpa