On 2/11/16, Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:12:12AM -0700, Jeff Merkey wrote: >> >> That's good to know, they could be false positives, but it was kind of >> wierd behavior caused by that macro. > > If it is true, it sounds more like a compiler bug to me. Any > statements a BUG() call are unreachable. If the compiler assumes that > in the case of: > > if (a) > BUG(); > printf("foo bar\n"); > > That the printf is not reachable, that's a compiler bug. And not a > problem in the BUG() macro. > > It might be that it's worthwhile to use other static code analysis > tools. Many people will look at warnings from Coverity and clang to > find potential problems, since these tend to find more warnings than > just using gcc. The problem with some of these, including Coverity, > is that they can be __too__ noisy, and if 90% of the warnings are > false positives, most people won't take the time to weed out several > dozen bogus warnings to find the one good one. >
Did you remove the calls to unreachable() before you did the build? Remove the call to that function from the BUG() macro, then do a build, and tell me I am seeing things. Jeff
