On 10.09.2026 11:30, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 10:38:34AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 10.09.2026 09:49, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 09:02:18AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> The use of unreachable(), when unreachability is visible to Eclair (and >>>> compilers), is deemed a violation. Drop the redundant statement. >>> >>> Urg, isn't that something that should be fixed in Eclair then? >>> Otherwise all the unreachable() calls in our codebase are likely to be >>> found by Eclair sooner or later, and will need to be removed. >> >> No, aiui most are covered by deviations. In particular ones in BUG() and >> ASSERT_UNREACHABLE(). > > Shouldn't this be a deviation then also?
Maybe, just that I had no good idea how to express such a deviation (preferably without a SAF comment). > Maybe it would be helpful if > the commit message states why this is handled differently from other > unreachable() instances then. I've added "..., , and the one here isn't covered by a deviation" to the first sentence. Will that suffice? Jan
