From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] BUG(): CONFIG_BUG=n version of BUG() should be unreachable()
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 12:35:44 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-14-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; )
Cc: Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, sam@ravnborg.org,
       dhowells@redhat.com
References: <1261531032-15225-1-git-send-email-a.beregalov@gmail.com> <200912302012.05827.arnd@arndb.de> <4B422E0C.1070108@caviumnetworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B422E0C.1070108@caviumnetworks.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201001051235.45568.arnd@arndb.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 969
Lines: 23

On Monday 04 January 2010, David Daney wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > The alternative "do { } while (1)" is not ideal, because an
> > endless loop still requires more code (typically one instruction)
> > than doing nothing at all.
> > 
> 
> Well "do { } while (1)" is exactly the expansion of unreachable() for 
> GCC < 4.5.  Since GCC-4.5 has not been released yet, most people will 
> get these extra looping instructions if you change BUG in this way.

Yes, that is why I wrote the final paragraph, saying
 
> > If there are only than a handful of places that actually cause a warning,
> > using "do { } while (0)" (or __builtin_unreachable where available) and
> > fixing up the code using it might be better.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/