From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [PATCH] signal: fix building with clang Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 16:28:05 +0100 Message-ID: <20190307152805.GA25101@redhat.com> References: <20190307091218.2343836-1-arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190307091218.2343836-1-arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nick Desaulniers , "Eric W . Biederman" , Alexander Viro , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle , Paul Burton , James Hogan , Andrew Morton , Deepa Dinamani , Christian Brauner , "Gustavo A. R. Silva" , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On 03/07, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > clang warns about the sigset_t manipulating functions (sigaddset, sigdelset, > sigisemptyset, ...) because it performs semantic analysis before discarding > dead code, unlike gcc that does this in the reverse order. > > The result is a long list of warnings like: > > In file included from arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h:21: > include/linux/compat.h:489:10: error: array index 3 is past the end of the array (which contains 2 elements) [-Werror,-Warray-bounds] > case 2: v.sig[3] = (set->sig[1] >> 32); v.sig[2] = set->sig[1]; stupid question... I have no idea if this can work or not, but may be we can just do --- x/Makefile +++ x/Makefile @@ -701,6 +701,7 @@ KBUILD_CPPFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Qun KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warning, format-invalid-specifier) KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warning, gnu) KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warning, address-of-packed-member) +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warning, array-bounds) # Quiet clang warning: comparison of unsigned expression < 0 is always false KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warning, tautological-compare) # CLANG uses a _MergedGlobals as optimization, but this breaks modpost, as the ? > As a (rather ugly) workaround, Yes :/ But I am not going to argue, just a couple of questions. > I turn the nice switch()/case statements > into preprocessor conditionals, and where that is not possible, use the > '%' operator I can't say what looks worse... to me it would be either use ifdef's or %'s everywhere in signal.h, with this patch the code doesn't look consistent. But I won't insist. > static inline int sigisemptyset(sigset_t *set) > { > - switch (_NSIG_WORDS) { > - case 4: > - return (set->sig[3] | set->sig[2] | > - set->sig[1] | set->sig[0]) == 0; > - case 2: > - return (set->sig[1] | set->sig[0]) == 0; > - case 1: > - return set->sig[0] == 0; > - default: > - BUILD_BUG(); > - return 0; > - } > +#if _NSIG_WORDS == 4 > + return (set->sig[3] | set->sig[2] | > + set->sig[1] | set->sig[0]) == 0; > +#elif _NSIG_WORDS == 2 > + return (set->sig[1] | set->sig[0]) == 0; > +#elif _NSIG_WORDS == 1 > + return set->sig[0] == 0; > +#else > + BUILD_BUG(); > +#endif > } Or perhaps we can simply rewrite this and other helpers? I don't think that, say, static inline int sigisemptyset(sigset_t *set) { for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(set->sig); ++i) set->sig[i] = 0; } will make asm worse... Oleg.