On 2013-10-28 20:18, Stefan Weil wrote: > Am 18.09.2013 09:48, schrieb Jan Kiszka: >> On 2013-09-18 09:26, Peter Maydell wrote: > [...] >>> And gcc's documentation of the 'noreturn' attribute specifically >>> says it does not affect the exceptional path where the function >>> returns via longjmp. >> OK, that is the clarifying bit of information. >> >> Now the question is if want to drop support for faulty compilers again, >> work around the false-positive warning, or avoid the issue differently >> than via reloading. >> >> Jan > > Recently commit 6c78f29a2424622bfc9c30dfbbc13404481eacb6 > added a third variable which is reloaded now. Obviously the clang > compiler needs this workaround. > > Jan, can you remember whether the initial problems were also > caused by clang? If yes, we might restrict the code to that compiler. > This would avoid the -Wclobbered warnings with newer gcc while > still fixing the code generated by clang.
Look up this thread: gcc 4.5.0 Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
