On 06/30/2014 11:20 AM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > On 30.06.2014 20:03, Matt Turner wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Ian Romanick <i...@freedesktop.org> wrote: >>> In the cases where a return (with a value) is removed, I'm afraid static >>> analysis tools will start to complain. I'll be surprised if Klocwork >>> understands (or trusts) GCC __builtin_unreachable decorations. >> >> Good catch. I didn't think about this. >> >> I did a little bit of searching and discovered this page: >> >> http://www.klocwork.com/products/documentation/current/Compiler_attributes_analyzed_by_Klocwork >> >> which fortunately says that Klocwork recognizes gcc's >> __attribute__((noreturn)), so I feel relatively confident that >> Klocwork recognizes __builtin_unreachable as well. >> >> If it doesn't and we get warnings from Klocwork, we can easily make >> the unreachable() macro expand to a static inline function marked with >> __attribute__((noreturn)). > > Why use gcc-specific stuff instead of the standard _Noreturn/noreturn?
As far as I can see, _noreturn is a C11 feature... we can't even count on C99 features in core Mesa yet, sooo... yeah. :) If we start to use any sort of noreturn decoration, we should wrap it in a macro that expands something the compiler can support. > Philipp > > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
