From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: mark BUG()s and assertion failures as terminal. Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:17:12 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20130919151043.GL52431@ocelot.phlegethon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130919151043.GL52431@ocelot.phlegethon.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Tim Deegan Cc: jbeulich@suse.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 19/09/2013 16:10, "Tim Deegan" wrote: > At 16:07 +0100 on 19 Sep (1379606849), Tim Deegan wrote: >> At 15:56 +0100 on 19 Sep (1379606210), Keir Fraser wrote: >>> On 19/09/2013 15:39, "Tim Deegan" wrote: >>>> @@ -14,6 +14,12 @@ >>>> #define always_inline __inline__ __attribute__ ((always_inline)) >>>> #define noinline __attribute__((noinline)) >>>> >>>> +#if (!defined(__clang__) && (__GNUC__ == 4) && (__GNUC_MINOR__ < 5)) >>> >>> Do you mean for gcc-3.4 to use __builtin_unreachable()? >> >> No, what I want is for clang and all GCCs >= 4.5 to use the builtin. > > Oh wait, I understand your question now: gcc 3.4 will already have > failed the version check at the top of the file, so I don't need to > check for it here. Argh, I was looking at a 4.1 branch. :) Then my Ack applies to your original patch as is! -- Keir > Tim.