IIRC, I was expecting some response from Ali as to why M5_DUMMY_RETURN
should or should not work. I did not poke in any further. To me it is a
compiler bug that we have to work with. I think return panic(""); works
with both 4.2 and 4.4 series, but we probably do not want that.
--
Nilay
On Tue, March 8, 2011 11:37 pm, nathan binkert wrote:
> Nilay,
>
> I know that this is a way old e-mail, but did you ever figure this out?
>
> Nate
>
> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Nilay Vaish <ni...@cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
>> 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
>>>
_______________________________________________
m5-dev mailing list
m5-dev@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
