On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:09:02PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 23 May 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > This is the problem you guys are missing - unreachable() means "we lose > > control of the CPU at this point". > > I'm absolutely aware of this. Again, the current behaviour of doing nothing > at all isn't very different from undefined behavior when you get when you > get to the end of a function returning a pointer without a "return" statement, > or when you return from a function that has determined that it is not safe > to continue.
Running off the end of a function like that is a different kettle of fish. The execution path is still as the compiler intends - what isn't is that the data returned is likely to be random trash. That's _quite_ different from the CPU starting to execute the contents of a literal data pool. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
