From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Triplett Subject: Re: [BUG] sparse warning EXPORT_SYMBOL()'d symbol non-static Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 12:45:56 -0800 Message-ID: <20131124204555.GA13012@leaf> References: <1385322581.23961.5.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <20131124202851.GF19762@tassilo.jf.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.197]:45139 "EHLO relay5-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752486Ab3KXUqF (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Nov 2013 15:46:05 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131124202851.GF19762@tassilo.jf.intel.com> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Andi Kleen Cc: Johannes Berg , Wei Yongjun , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 12:28:51PM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Well, sparse is clearly "right", for all it cares it might very well be > > static, but it seems this is necessary for something in the kernel and > > we clearly can't forward-declare it in a header file. Perhaps we can add > > some annotation to say > > "__attribute__((yes_I_know_but_really_dont_want_this_to_be_static))" to > > suppress this warning? This is getting annoying to me as well :-) > > We could do something like > > typeof(foo); > > in the macro. Not sure if that would make sparse happy. If you're just looking to mollify sparse, the easiest way is to put a prototype of the symbol right before the symbol itself. > Also this is really working around a problem upto gcc 4.8. that was fixed > in gcc 4.9 (adding numerical postfixes to all symbols) If it's ok to let LTO only support 4.9+ the patches could be reverted. That seems like the best solution, assuming the later scripts can't be fixed to cope with the numeric suffixes from 4.8. - Josh Triplett