I am able to reproduce the warning. But I have to compile the files on my
own (as in, write the compilation command on the command line) in order to
reproduce the warning.
This is the proposed patch.
--
Nilay
diff --git a/src/mem/ruby/system/PerfectCacheMemory.hh
b/src/mem/ruby/system/PerfectCacheMemory.hh
--- a/src/mem/ruby/system/PerfectCacheMemory.hh
+++ b/src/mem/ruby/system/PerfectCacheMemory.hh
@@ -124,6 +124,7 @@
bool& block_stc, ENTRY*& entry)
{
panic("not implemented");
+ return true;
}
// tests to see if an address is present in the cache
@@ -167,6 +168,7 @@
PerfectCacheMemory<ENTRY>::cacheProbe(const Address& newAddress) const
{
panic("cacheProbe called in perfect cache");
+ return newAddress;
}
// looks an address up in the cache
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Nilay Vaish wrote:
I do not have GCC 4.2.4, but with GCC 4.2.2 I do not see those warnings.
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Steve Reinhardt wrote:
It could be an issue with gcc 4.2.4 not properly handling the "no return"
attribute in some cases... that being a bug that's fixed in 4.4 would
explain why it works for you. That's just speculation on my part though.
Does anyone else have any experience with this? Does the error go away on
4.2.4 if you put the dead 'return' statement back in the particular place
that it's complaining about?
Steve
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Nilay Vaish <ni...@cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
Steve, you had commented that panic() and fatal() are marked as "no
return". Then, why should these warnings appear? And why would the
compiler
be fine with ERROR_MSG?
--
Nilay
_______________________________________________
m5-dev mailing list
m5-dev@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
