From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 62584 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2019 21:26:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 62574 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jan 2019 21:26:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,KAM_MANYTO,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=52813, H*f:sk:DB7PR07, Hx-languages-length:672, H*f:sk:AM6PR07 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 21:26:38 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BDE71F8F2; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 21:26:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-18.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.18]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CC265D6A9; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 21:26:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x0ALQXKB005188; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 22:26:33 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x0ALQToX004899; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 22:26:29 +0100 Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 21:26:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Segher Boessenkool , Bernd Edlinger , Dimitar Dimitrov , Christophe Lyon , Thomas Preudhomme , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , richard.sandiford@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] PR target/52813 and target/11807 Message-ID: <20190110212629.GZ30353@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <85840089.MtehzfUrTt@tpdeb> <20190107092337.GM30353@tucnak> <87lg3vicg5.fsf@arm.com> <20190110132111.GZ14180@gate.crashing.org> <87zhs84374.fsf@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87zhs84374.fsf@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-01/txt/msg00576.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 09:23:27PM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > "noreturn"... What would that mean, *exactly*? It cannot execute any > > code the compiler can see, so such asm is better off as real asm anyway > > (not inline asm). > > "Exactly" is a strong word, and this wasn't my proposal, but... > I think it would act like a noreturn call to an unknown function. > Output operands wouldn't make sense, and arguably clobbers wouldn't > either. "noreturn" asm can be done already now, just use asm volatile ("..." ...); __builtin_unreachable (); I think there is no need to add a new syntax for that. Jakub