From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:00:55 +0200
Message-ID: <20080729080055.GA28916@elte.hu>
References: <20080729162300.733b3e09.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:33064 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752688AbYG2IBQ (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-next@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:01:16 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080729162300.733b3e09.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-next.vger.kernel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Linus <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>


* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Dave,
> 
> Today's linux-next build (sparc64 defconfig) failed like this:
> 
> kernel/time/tick-common.c: In function `tick_check_new_device':
> kernel/time/tick-common.c:210: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
> kernel/time/tick-common.c:223: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
> kernel/time/tick-common.c:255: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
> 
> gcc is version 3.4.5 sparc64 cross compiler (powercp64 host).
> 
> The below patch fixes it.
>
> when you take the address of the result.  Noticed on a sparc64 compile
> using a version 3.4.5 cross compiler.
> 
> kernel/time/tick-common.c: In function `tick_check_new_device':
> kernel/time/tick-common.c:210: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
> kernel/time/tick-common.c:223: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
> kernel/time/tick-common.c:255: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> ---
>  include/linux/cpumask.h |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpumask.h b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> index 96d0509..d3219d7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpumask.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> @@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ static inline const cpumask_t *get_cpu_mask(unsigned int cpu)
>   * gcc optimizes it out (it's a constant) and there's no huge stack
>   * variable created:
>   */
> -#define cpumask_of_cpu(cpu) ({ *get_cpu_mask(cpu); })
> +#define cpumask_of_cpu(cpu) (*get_cpu_mask(cpu))

hm, i'm wondering - is this a compiler bug?

	Ingo