From patchwork Sun Jan 6 00:12:26 2013 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Steven Bosscher X-Patchwork-Id: 209708 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 49F332C0086 for ; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 11:13:24 +1100 (EST) Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; x=1358036005; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received:Received: MIME-Version:Received:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date: Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc:Content-Type:Mailing-List:Precedence: List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender: Delivered-To; bh=k39YMEFAp4NChQQGT6NSfNPgpwc=; b=S2fqnZYw+63Ji2e liuOmasF+qhRG2vWXzHjeM4/SVhspA6UMlhm2GBqMDNw66lHH1ffpeNLwS1EWXA4 T7l2s9AJ7mM3q7i9srYfy5Z9ybovrTB36xzqKMJYweNKohxJRDeqK5xGPOSscYLd pyklLe5XVleV50R9PDzM+K+qeSeA= Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=Received:Received:X-SWARE-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Check-By:Received:Received:Received:MIME-Version:Received:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc:Content-Type:X-IsSubscribed:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; b=WcArjsiMKLbi351lYFSBnvp3CmOA4mSYZ/2nqG3MX6vB0BdrAiWIkQAY52VSEk pXIX1evK0fPfax48JgEujRpXozr6FpBZK11Bw4zBs+HrUS6CZftHxufJ/0EnjG1o scabDzgxT/n/gUJvJqAWN5GyApc43o9oSzJc3v7+qrxfc=; Received: (qmail 1663 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2013 00:13:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 1646 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jan 2013 00:13:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, KHOP_RCVD_TRUST, KHOP_THREADED, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-vc0-f178.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f178.google.com) (209.85.220.178) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 00:13:07 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id l6so4101234vcl.9 for ; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 16:13:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.219.204 with SMTP id hv12mr78378186vcb.71.1357431186302; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 16:13:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.215.38 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 16:12:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <50E5EF58.4020807@redhat.com> From: Steven Bosscher Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 01:12:26 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Control dependence vs. builtin_unreachable To: Jeff Law , GCC Patches Cc: Richard Biener , Michael Matz X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > Bootstrapped&tested on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu. And to be clear, bootstrapped with this patch on top: Otherwise, __builtin_unreachable would be almost unused and bootstrap+test wouldn't prove much :-) Ciao! Steven Index: system.h =================================================================== --- system.h (revision 194924) +++ system.h (working copy) @@ -698,7 +698,7 @@ /* Use gcc_unreachable() to mark unreachable locations (like an unreachable default case of a switch. Do not use gcc_assert(0). */ -#if (GCC_VERSION >= 4005) && !ENABLE_ASSERT_CHECKING +#if (GCC_VERSION >= 4005) //&& !ENABLE_ASSERT_CHECKING #define gcc_unreachable() __builtin_unreachable() #else #define gcc_unreachable() (fancy_abort (__FILE__, __LINE__, __FUNCTION__))