On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 05:34:27 GMT, Kim Barrett <kbarr...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> My suggestion of using assertions instead doesn't seem to work, still getting > bogus warnings. This is with gcc14.2 on linux-aarch64, which also uses > __atomic_load. That is mysteriously weird. The noreturn reporting function > should be roughly equivalent to calling an ordinary function with an > "unreachable" following it. But then, this whole issue is mysteriously weird. > > But that's okay; I wasn't really all that keen on adding assertions to > suppress bogus compiler warnings anyway. > > At this point I think this change should just not be made. It's a compiler > bug. The existing suppression of the warnings is fine with me. > > I think what's really needed is for someone to file a gcc bug. It's too bad > nobody did that when the issue was first noticed. There's already a bug that > is similar, and might even be the same, even though it involves sanitizers > and ours doesn't: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113775 Thanks @kimbarrett, after looking at your findings I agree that it looks like a GCC bug, and therefore we should not do this change. I will try to make the smallest reproducible example and submit a bug report. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26067#issuecomment-3031232698
