On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:09:02PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Thursday 23 May 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

quoted

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.

I agree it's best to e.g. trap and reboot.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds