Re: Definition of BUG on x86

[Ingo Molnar]

* Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar pÃÅe v Ät 19. 02. 2009 v 13:47 +0100:
> > * Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > Ingo Molnar pÃÅe v Ät 19. 02. 2009 v 13:22 +0100:
> > > > * Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Ingo Molnar pÃÅe v Ät 19. 02. 2009 v 13:10 +0100:
> > > > > > * Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So, the only method I could invent was using gas macros. It 
> > > > > > > works but is quite ugly, because it relies on the actual 
> > > > > > > assembler instruction which is generated by the compiler. Now, 
> > > > > > > AFAIK gcc has always translated "for(;;)" into a jump to self, 
> > > > > > > and that with any conceivable compiler options, but I don't 
> > > > > > > know anything about Intel cc.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > +static inline __noreturn void discarded_jmp(void)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +	asm volatile(".macro jmp target\n"
> > > > > > > +		     "\t.purgem jmp\n"
> > > > > > > +		     ".endm\n");
> > > > > > > +	for (;;) ;
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > hm, that's very fragile.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Why not just:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  static inline __noreturn void x86_u2d(void)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > > 	asm volatile("u2d\n");
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If GCC emits a bogus warning about _that_, then it's a bug in 
> > > > > > the compiler that should be fixed.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I wouldn't call it a bug. The compiler has no idea about what 
> > > > > the inline assembly actualy does. So it cannot recognize that 
> > > > > the ud2 instruction does not return (which BTW might not even 
> > > > > be the case, depending on the implementation of the Invalid 
> > > > > Opcode exception).
> > > > 
> > > > No, i'm not talking about the inline assembly.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm talking about the x86_u2d() _inline function_, which has 
> > > > the __noreturn attribute.
> > > > 
> > > > Shouldnt that be enough to tell the compiler that it ... wont 
> > > > return?
> > > 
> > > Nope, that's not how it works.
> > > 
> > > You _may_ specify a noreturn attribute to any function (and 
> > > GCC will honour it AFAICS), but if GCC _thinks_ that the 
> > > function does return, it will issue the above-mentioned 
> > > warning:
> > > 
> > > /usr/src/linux-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h:10: warning: 'noreturn' function does return
> > > 
> > > And that's what your function will do. :-(
> > > 
> > > Yes, I also thinks that this behaviour is counter-intuitive. 
> > > Besides, I haven't found a gcc switch to turn this warning 
> > > off, which would be my next recommendation, since the GCC 
> > > heuristics is broken, of course.
> > 
> > so GCC should be fixed and improved here, on several levels.
> 
> Agree.
> 
> But it takes some time, even if we start pushing right now. 
> What's your suggestion for the meantime? Keep the dummy jmp? 
> And in case anybody is concerned about saving every byte in 
> the text section, they can apply my dirty patch?
> 
> Actually, this doesn't sound too bad.

yeah. Please forward the problem to the appropriate GCC list in 
any case.

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