From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] byteswap: try to avoid __builtin_constant_p gcc bug Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 01:10:16 +0200 Message-ID: <2346484.tQ1Ts8bYKc@wuerfel> References: <1780465.XdtPJpi8Tt@wuerfel> <20160502160218.595498b23dafe055fd52b039@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([217.72.192.74]:56599 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755221AbcEBXLK (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 May 2016 19:11:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160502160218.595498b23dafe055fd52b039@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com, Martin Jambor , "Martin K. Petersen" , James Bottomley , Denys Vlasenko , Thomas Graf , Peter Zijlstra , David Rientjes , Ingo Molnar , Himanshu Madhani , Dept-Eng QLA2xxx Upstream , Jan Hubicka On Monday 02 May 2016 16:02:18 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 02 May 2016 23:48:19 +0200 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > This is another attempt to avoid a regression in wwn_to_u64() after > > that started using get_unaligned_be64(), which in turn ran into a > > bug on gcc-4.9 through 6.1. > > I'm still getting a couple screenfuls of things like > > net/tipc/name_distr.c: In function 'tipc_named_process_backlog': > net/tipc/name_distr.c:330: warning: format '%u' expects type 'unsigned int', but argument 3 has type 'unsigned int' > net/tipc/name_distr.c:330: warning: format '%u' expects type 'unsigned int', but argument 4 has type 'unsigned int' > net/tipc/name_distr.c:330: warning: format '%u' expects type 'unsigned int', but argument 5 has type 'unsigned int' > net/tipc/name_distr.c:330: warning: format '%u' expects type 'unsigned int', but argument 7 has type 'unsigned int' I've built a few thousand kernels (arm32 with gcc-6.1) with the patch applied, but didn't see this one. What target architecture and compiler version produced this? Does it go away if you add a (__u32) cast? I don't even know what the warning is trying to tell me. Arnd