From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
To: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"Nathan Chancellor" <nathan@kernel.org>,
"Nicolas Schier" <nsc@kernel.org>,
linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] kbuild: Only enable -Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare for W=2
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 17:14:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251222171457.0b4848a0@pumpkin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8b6d335b-d473-4442-a17f-497ae7996165@app.fastmail.com>
On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 11:20:18 +0100
"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2025, at 13:15, David Laight wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Dec 2025 11:27:13 +0100
> >>
> >> This does seem like a completely sensible warning to me, and it's
> >> always been enabled by default. I see three patches in the git history
> >> (all from Nathan), which all make sense as well.
> >>
> >> > Inside FIELD_PREP_CONST(mask, val) there is (with the patch, and if I've
> >> > typed it correctly):
> >> > BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(!(mask) || (mask) & ((mask) + ((mask) & -(mask)))))
> >> > to check the mask is non-zero and contiguous bits.
> >>
> >> I think the problem is (as so often) the linux/bitfield.h headers
> >> making things way too complicated. That condition makes no sense to
> >> me, and neither would I expect a compiler to make sense of it either.
> >
> > It is simple really :-)
> > -mask is (~mask + 1) so its lowest set bit is the same at that of mask.
> > Adding mask changes the adjacent 1s to zeros.
> > Anding with mask is then any high bits that are the same in both.
> > So is non-zero if mask has noncontiguous bits in it.
>
> The bit that I find most confusing here is how you have a boolean '||'
> operation of two integers, but then interpret the result as an
> integer again.
I'm not sure what you are getting at.
The BUILD_BUG() macros want a 'boolean' argument.
The _ON_ZERO() is the return value, nothing to do with the argument.
So LHS of the || is 'boolean' and the RHS has the implicit conversion.
> > Adding ' == 0' and ' != 0' would just make the line longer.
>
> I don't think we care about the link length here at all.
> Splitting it up into two BUILD_BUG_ON() or BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO()
> lines would help here as well.
I'm merging them to reduce bloat.....
It's not as though either test fails often enough to need separate
error messages.
> >> If there is no way to express those conditions more clearly, I would
> >> prefer removing the BUILD_BUG_ON stuff from the bitfield.h header,
> >> it keeps causing way more false positives than finding actual bugs
> >> with the input.
> >
> > I was just trying to reduce the .i lines line from 18KB for a typical use.
>
> That seems like a worthwhile goal, but I think the only way to
> make an actual impact here is to reduce the fan-out and evaluate
> 'mask' less than the current five times in that line (plus additional
> evalations. If the 'mask' value is defined using complex macros
> like ilog2() or max3() already, the expansion explodes.
It usually comes from GENMASK() and that is several hundred characters.
Changing type_max(type) to (type)-1 would help that a lot (type is unsigned).
Even changing type_max() to do (2 * (x - 1) + 1) instead of ((x - 1) + x)
saves quite a long expansion.
> Unfortunately the constant version of these macros can't use
> compound statements, otherwise we could use an __auto_type temporary
> here.
Fortunately there aren't that many uses of the _CONST version.
The change to bitmask.h that show this 'bug' used _auto_type
to reduce bloat for the common case.
>
> > Probably the only useful check is statically_true(hi < lo) in GENMASK.
>
> Agreed, that one is clearly worth keeping.
>
> Arnd
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-22 17:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-14 13:15 [PATCH 1/1] kbuild: Only enable -Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare for W=2 david.laight.linux
2025-12-19 20:12 ` Nathan Chancellor
2025-12-19 20:26 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-12-19 22:18 ` David Laight
2025-12-20 10:27 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-12-20 12:15 ` David Laight
2025-12-22 10:20 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-12-22 17:14 ` David Laight [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20251222171457.0b4848a0@pumpkin \
--to=david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=nsc@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox