Do you mean you have to enter the compilation command manually to use the
different version of gcc?  You can override the default compiler by setting
CC=<path> as a scons argument (or something like that... typing from memory
here).

Or was there another reason?

Steve

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Nilay Vaish <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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 <[email protected]> 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
> [email protected]
> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
>
_______________________________________________
m5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev

Reply via email to