Re: [PATCH, re-send] Always trap on BUG()

2013-07-25 Thread Chen Gang
On 07/26/2013 06:05 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Chen Gang wrote: > >> On 07/23/2013 05:36 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> >>> (the crazies can keep a separate patch to remove even more of BUG() to win >>> a K or two.) >>> >> >> Excuse me, my English is not quite well, I do not quite understand your >>

Re: [PATCH, re-send] Always trap on BUG()

2013-07-25 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Chen Gang wrote: > On 07/23/2013 05:36 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > (the crazies can keep a separate patch to remove even more of BUG() to win > > a K or two.) > > > > Excuse me, my English is not quite well, I do not quite understand your > meaning, could you please repeat again in detai

Re: [PATCH, re-send] Always trap on BUG()

2013-07-23 Thread Chen Gang
On 07/23/2013 05:36 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > (the crazies can keep a separate patch to remove even more of BUG() to win > a K or two.) > Excuse me, my English is not quite well, I do not quite understand your meaning, could you please repeat again in details or say more clearly ? Thanks. --

Re: [PATCH, re-send] Always trap on BUG()

2013-07-23 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 07/23/2013 02:36 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> Well, there are three alternatives here, right: >> >> 1. We can use unreachable(), which means that the compiler can assume it >> never happens. > > AFAICS this is dangerous as it loses warnings and moves execution into > la-la-land without any obv

Re: [PATCH, re-send] Always trap on BUG()

2013-07-23 Thread Ingo Molnar
* H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 07/15/2013 03:27 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:16:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> I've been thinking for a while that CONFIG_BUG=n is a pretty dumb thing > >> to do, and that maintaining it (and trying to fix the warnings it

Re: [PATCH, re-send] Always trap on BUG()

2013-07-15 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:35:16PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 07/15/2013 03:27 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:16:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> I've been thinking for a while that CONFIG_BUG=n is a pretty dumb thing > >> to do, and that maintaining

Re: [PATCH, re-send] Always trap on BUG()

2013-07-15 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 07/15/2013 03:27 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:16:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >> I've been thinking for a while that CONFIG_BUG=n is a pretty dumb thing >> to do, and that maintaining it (and trying to fix the warnings it >> produces) aren't worth the effo

Re: [PATCH, re-send] Always trap on BUG()

2013-07-15 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:16:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > I've been thinking for a while that CONFIG_BUG=n is a pretty dumb thing > to do, and that maintaining it (and trying to fix the warnings it > produces) aren't worth the effort and that we should remove the whole > thing. Perhaps your

Re: [PATCH, re-send] Always trap on BUG()

2013-07-15 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 17:38:35 +0200 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I've run some size analyis using the ARM 'multi_v7_defconfig' > and gcc-4.8, using various definitions for BUG() and BUG_ON(), to > see how big the size improvement actually gets > > 1. Baseline: normal bug plus CONFIG_BUG_VERBOSE >tex

Re: [PATCH, re-send] Always trap on BUG()

2013-07-12 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I've run some size analyis using the ARM 'multi_v7_defconfig' > and gcc-4.8, using various definitions for BUG() and BUG_ON(), to > see how big the size improvement actually gets > > 1. Baseline: normal bug plus CONFIG_BUG_VERBOSE >textdata bss dec h

[PATCH, re-send] Always trap on BUG()

2013-07-05 Thread Arnd Bergmann
I've run some size analyis using the ARM 'multi_v7_defconfig' and gcc-4.8, using various definitions for BUG() and BUG_ON(), to see how big the size improvement actually gets 1. Baseline: normal bug plus CONFIG_BUG_VERBOSE textdata bss dec hex filename 3743196 224396 206812 41