Patchwork [01/10] Add support for GCC-4.5's __builtin_unreachable() to compiler.h

login
register
mail settings
Submitter David Daney
Date Sept. 10, 2009, 11:56 p.m.
Message ID <1252627011-2933-1-git-send-email-ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/33402/
State Not Applicable
Headers show

Comments

David Daney - Sept. 10, 2009, 11:56 p.m.
Starting with version 4.5, GCC has a new built-in function
__builtin_unreachable() that can be used in places like the kernel's
BUG() where inline assembly is used to transfer control flow.  This
eliminated the need for an endless loop in these places.

The patch adds a new macro 'unreachable()' that will expand to either
__builtin_unreachable() or an endless loop depending on the compiler
version.

Signed-off-by: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
CC: x86@kernel.org
CC: ralf@linux-mips.org
CC: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
CC: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
CC: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
CC: linux390@de.ibm.com
CC: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
CC: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
CC: Koichi Yasutake <yasutake.koichi@jp.panasonic.com>
CC: linux-am33-list@redhat.com
CC: Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca>
CC: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>
CC: linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org
CC: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
CC: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
CC: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
CC: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
CC: Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>
CC: linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org
CC: Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@atmel.com>
CC: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
CC: uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org
---
 include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h |   14 ++++++++++++++
 include/linux/compiler.h      |    5 +++++
 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Richard Henderson - Sept. 11, 2009, 12:14 a.m.
On 09/10/2009 04:56 PM, David Daney wrote:
> +#ifndef unreachable
> +# define unreachable() do { for (;;) ; } while (0)
> +#endif

#define unreachable() do { } while (1)


r~
Michael Buesch - Sept. 11, 2009, 2:32 p.m.
On Friday 11 September 2009 01:56:42 David Daney wrote:
> +/* Unreachable code */
> +#ifndef unreachable
> +# define unreachable() do { for (;;) ; } while (0)
> +#endif

# define unreachable() do { } while (1)

? :)
David Daney - Sept. 11, 2009, 3:58 p.m.
Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Friday 11 September 2009 01:56:42 David Daney wrote:
>> +/* Unreachable code */
>> +#ifndef unreachable
>> +# define unreachable() do { for (;;) ; } while (0)
>> +#endif
> 
> # define unreachable() do { } while (1)
> 
> ? :)

Clearly I was not thinking clearly when I wrote that part.  RTH noted 
the same thing.  I will fix it.

Thanks,
David Daney
Geert Uytterhoeven - Sept. 12, 2009, 7:22 a.m.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 17:58, David Daney<ddaney@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:
> Michael Buesch wrote:
>>
>> On Friday 11 September 2009 01:56:42 David Daney wrote:
>>>
>>> +/* Unreachable code */
>>> +#ifndef unreachable
>>> +# define unreachable() do { for (;;) ; } while (0)
>>> +#endif
>>
>> # define unreachable() do { } while (1)
>>
>> ? :)
>
> Clearly I was not thinking clearly when I wrote that part.  RTH noted the
> same thing.  I will fix it.

However, people are so used to seeing the `do { } while (0)' idiom,
that they might miss
there's a `1' here, not a `0'.

So perhaps it's better to use plain `for (;;)' for infinite loops?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds
David Daney - Sept. 14, 2009, 3:40 p.m.
Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 17:58, David Daney<ddaney@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:
>> Michael Buesch wrote:
>>> On Friday 11 September 2009 01:56:42 David Daney wrote:
>>>> +/* Unreachable code */
>>>> +#ifndef unreachable
>>>> +# define unreachable() do { for (;;) ; } while (0)
>>>> +#endif
>>> # define unreachable() do { } while (1)
>>>
>>> ? :)
>> Clearly I was not thinking clearly when I wrote that part.  RTH noted the
>> same thing.  I will fix it.
> 
> However, people are so used to seeing the `do { } while (0)' idiom,
> that they might miss
> there's a `1' here, not a `0'.
> 
> So perhaps it's better to use plain `for (;;)' for infinite loops?
> 

I don't think so.  The only valid token that can follow 'do { } while 
(1)' is ';', any statement may follow 'for (;;)', so there is a greater 
possibility to silently screw things up with the for(;;) form.

David Daney

Patch

diff --git a/include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h b/include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h
index 450fa59..ab3af40 100644
--- a/include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h
+++ b/include/linux/compiler-gcc4.h
@@ -36,4 +36,18 @@ 
    the kernel context */
 #define __cold			__attribute__((__cold__))
 
+
+#if __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 5
+/*
+ * Mark a position in code as unreachable.  This can be used to
+ * suppress control flow warnings after asm blocks that transfer
+ * control elsewhere.
+ *
+ * Early snapshots of gcc 4.5 don't support this and we can't detect
+ * this in the preprocessor, but we can live with this because they're
+ * unreleased.  Really, we need to have autoconf for the kernel.
+ */
+#define unreachable() __builtin_unreachable()
+#endif
+
 #endif
diff --git a/include/linux/compiler.h b/include/linux/compiler.h
index 04fb513..7efd73f 100644
--- a/include/linux/compiler.h
+++ b/include/linux/compiler.h
@@ -144,6 +144,11 @@  void ftrace_likely_update(struct ftrace_branch_data *f, int val, int expect);
 # define barrier() __memory_barrier()
 #endif
 
+/* Unreachable code */
+#ifndef unreachable
+# define unreachable() do { for (;;) ; } while (0)
+#endif
+
 #ifndef RELOC_HIDE
 # define RELOC_HIDE(ptr, off)					\
   ({ unsigned long __ptr;					\