On Jun 3, 2013, at 1:27 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Yes. Speaking of which, so how should this be handled? Imagine we have
>> asm("# no bytes") before the unreachable. The compiler can't know the size
>> (though, the linker can), and yet, a good solution handles this as well.
>> Hopefully
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On May 31, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> This will only fix the GCC source but not other sources which does:
>> void f(void)
>> {
>> __builtin_unreachable();
>> }
>
> Yes. Speaking of which, so how should this be handled? Imagine
On May 31, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> This will only fix the GCC source but not other sources which does:
> void f(void)
> {
> __builtin_unreachable();
> }
Yes. Speaking of which, so how should this be handled? Imagine we have asm("#
no bytes") before the unreachable. The compi
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> So, on darwin, the new tools don't like FDE information when you have:
>
> __Z24default_no_named_sectionPKcjP9tree_node:
> LFB588:
> LFE588:
>
> in the object file.
>
> $ dwarfdump --eh-frame --verify varasm.o
>
On May 31, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> I think really, we either need to have a default of 0 (to crash in a nice way)
The previous patch does not fix it. I think we need to use 0 instead:
Ok?
New idea:
Index: target.def
==
So, on darwin, the new tools don't like FDE information when you have:
__Z24default_no_named_sectionPKcjP9tree_node:
LFB588:
LFE588:
in the object file.
$ dwarfdump --eh-frame --verify varasm.o
--
File: varasm.o (x86_64)
--
