Re: nvptx abort implementation

[Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>]

Hi Tom!

On Thu, 3 May 2018 11:30:19 +0200, Tom de Vries <Tom_deVries@mentor.com> wrote:
> On 05/03/2018 10:39 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 May 2018 19:36:53 +0200, Tom de Vries <Tom_deVries@mentor.com> wrote:
> >> IV.
> >>
> >> I'd prefer a robust abort implementation that:
> >> - does not depend on the __builtin_trap gcc bug being fixed, and
> > 
> > Why not just do that?  (Even just on trunk, given that the current
> > implementation as used for release branches will effectively also abort?)
> 
> Well, what you're saying here is that a robust implementation is not 
> needed, given that you think that the current implementation will work 
> in all the use cases you can think of and think of as relevant.
> 
> I OTOH think that with a robust implementation, it will work in all use 
> cases.

Well, what I don't understand is why your proposed 'abort' implementation
is more robust than a '__builtin_trap' one (with GCC fixed, of course)?


Grüße
 Thomas