I tried M5_DUMMY_RETURN and it it not working. I checked its definition.
It would evaluate to nothing, in which case I do not see why it should
help in avoiding the warning. I tried putting a return statement before
panic();
return panic("not implemented");
This works with GCC 4.2.2.
I checked whether GCC has some recorded bug reports for this. I found the
following two -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30988
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42674
I tried the provided codes. For the first one, 4.2.2 raises a warning but
4.4.0 does not. For the second one, 4.4.0 raises a warning but 4.2.2 does
not.
--
Nilay
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Ali Saidi wrote:
A better solution would be to put M5_DUMMY_RETURN there. I know there'd
were some issues with some versions of gcc not respecting the attribute
no return. This might be the case.
Ali
Sent from my ARM powered device
On Dec 23, 2010, at 1:10 PM, 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
_______________________________________________
m5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
