[PATCH] selftests/powerpc: Suppress false positive -Wmaybe-uninitialized with GCC 15

[PATCH] selftests/powerpc: Suppress false positive -Wmaybe-uninitialized with GCC 15

[Amit Machhiwal]

GCC 15 reports the below false positive '-Wmaybe-uninitialized' warning
in vphn_unpack_associativity() when building the powerpc selftests.

  # make -C tools/testing/selftests TARGETS="powerpc"
  [...]
    CC       test-vphn
  In file included from test-vphn.c:3:
  In function ‘vphn_unpack_associativity’,
      inlined from ‘test_one’ at test-vphn.c:371:2,
      inlined from ‘test_vphn’ at test-vphn.c:399:9:
  test-vphn.c:10:33: error: ‘be_packed’ may be used uninitialized [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
     10 | #define be16_to_cpup(x)         bswap_16(*x)
        |                                 ^~~~~~~~
  vphn.c:42:27: note: in expansion of macro ‘be16_to_cpup’
     42 |                 u16 new = be16_to_cpup(field++);
        |                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~
  In file included from test-vphn.c:19:
  vphn.c: In function ‘test_vphn’:
  vphn.c:27:16: note: ‘be_packed’ declared here
     27 |         __be64 be_packed[VPHN_REGISTER_COUNT];
        |                ^~~~~~~~~
  cc1: all warnings being treated as errors

When vphn_unpack_associativity() is called from hcall_vphn(), this error
is not seen during compilation because GCC 15 seems to consider 'retbuf'
always populated from the hypervisor which is eventually referred by
'be_packed'. However, GCC 15's dataflow analysis can’t prove the same
before the first dereference when vphn_unpack_associativity() is called
from test_one() with pre-initialized array of 'struct test'. This
results in a false positive warning which is promoted to an error under
'-Werror'. This problem is not seen when the compilation is performed
with GCC 13 and 14.

Suppress the warning locally around the offending statement when
building with GCC 15 using a diagnostic pragma. This keeps the build
working while limiting the scope of the suppression to the specific
statement that triggers the false positive. An issue [1] has also been
created on GCC bugzilla.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124427

Fixes: 58dae82843f5 ("selftests/powerpc: Add test for VPHN")
Reviewed-by: Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Amit Machhiwal <amachhiw@linux.ibm.com>
---
 arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c
index 3f85ece3c872..9bc891143fec 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c
@@ -39,7 +39,22 @@ static int vphn_unpack_associativity(const long *packed, __be32 *unpacked)
 		be_packed[i] = cpu_to_be64(packed[i]);
 
 	for (i = 1; i < VPHN_ASSOC_BUFSIZE; i++) {
+/*
+ * When this function is called from hcall_vphn(), GCC 15 seems to consider
+ * 'retbuf' always populated from the hypervisor which is eventually referred by
+ * 'be_packed'. However, GCC 15's dataflow analysis can’t prove the same before
+ * the first dereference when this function is called from test_one() with
+ * pre-initialized array of 'struct test'. This results in a false positive
+ * '-Wmaybe-uninitialized' warning which is promoted to an error under
+ * '-Werror'. This problem is not seen when the compilation is performed with
+ * older GCC versions.
+ */
+#pragma GCC diagnostic push
+#if defined(__GNUC__) && __GNUC__ >= 15
+#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wmaybe-uninitialized"
+#endif
 		u16 new = be16_to_cpup(field++);
+#pragma GCC diagnostic pop
 
 		if (is_32bit) {
 			/*

base-commit: 1f318b96cc84d7c2ab792fcc0bfd42a7ca890681
-- 
2.50.1 (Apple Git-155)

Re: [PATCH] selftests/powerpc: Suppress false positive -Wmaybe-uninitialized with GCC 15

[Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)]

Le 10/03/2026 à 11:15, Amit Machhiwal a écrit :
> GCC 15 reports the below false positive '-Wmaybe-uninitialized' warning
> in vphn_unpack_associativity() when building the powerpc selftests.
> 
>    # make -C tools/testing/selftests TARGETS="powerpc"
>    [...]
>      CC       test-vphn
>    In file included from test-vphn.c:3:
>    In function ‘vphn_unpack_associativity’,
>        inlined from ‘test_one’ at test-vphn.c:371:2,
>        inlined from ‘test_vphn’ at test-vphn.c:399:9:
>    test-vphn.c:10:33: error: ‘be_packed’ may be used uninitialized [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
>       10 | #define be16_to_cpup(x)         bswap_16(*x)
>          |                                 ^~~~~~~~
>    vphn.c:42:27: note: in expansion of macro ‘be16_to_cpup’
>       42 |                 u16 new = be16_to_cpup(field++);
>          |                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~
>    In file included from test-vphn.c:19:
>    vphn.c: In function ‘test_vphn’:
>    vphn.c:27:16: note: ‘be_packed’ declared here
>       27 |         __be64 be_packed[VPHN_REGISTER_COUNT];
>          |                ^~~~~~~~~
>    cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> 
> When vphn_unpack_associativity() is called from hcall_vphn(), this error
> is not seen during compilation because GCC 15 seems to consider 'retbuf'
> always populated from the hypervisor which is eventually referred by
> 'be_packed'. However, GCC 15's dataflow analysis can’t prove the same
> before the first dereference when vphn_unpack_associativity() is called
> from test_one() with pre-initialized array of 'struct test'. This
> results in a false positive warning which is promoted to an error under
> '-Werror'. This problem is not seen when the compilation is performed
> with GCC 13 and 14.
> 
> Suppress the warning locally around the offending statement when
> building with GCC 15 using a diagnostic pragma. This keeps the build
> working while limiting the scope of the suppression to the specific
> statement that triggers the false positive. An issue [1] has also been
> created on GCC bugzilla.

Usually when we get this kind of warning this is because the code is too 
complex. We should try to make it more obvious instead of just hiding 
the warning.

Here the for loop is a bit misleading.

> 
> [1] https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgcc.gnu.org%2Fbugzilla%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D124427&data=05%7C02%7Cchristophe.leroy%40csgroup.eu%7C06a4d55b55f24c5cf00208de7e8e3676%7C8b87af7d86474dc78df45f69a2011bb5%7C0%7C0%7C639087346428583316%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xEfO94N6IfGYhmmapNFduv3OrMarxpjTpZR6B38uR1s%3D&reserved=0
> 
> Fixes: 58dae82843f5 ("selftests/powerpc: Add test for VPHN")
> Reviewed-by: Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@linux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Amit Machhiwal <amachhiw@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>   arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c
> index 3f85ece3c872..9bc891143fec 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c
> @@ -39,7 +39,22 @@ static int vphn_unpack_associativity(const long *packed, __be32 *unpacked)
>   		be_packed[i] = cpu_to_be64(packed[i]);
>   
>   	for (i = 1; i < VPHN_ASSOC_BUFSIZE; i++) {
> +/*
> + * When this function is called from hcall_vphn(), GCC 15 seems to consider
> + * 'retbuf' always populated from the hypervisor which is eventually referred by
> + * 'be_packed'. However, GCC 15's dataflow analysis can’t prove the same before
> + * the first dereference when this function is called from test_one() with
> + * pre-initialized array of 'struct test'. This results in a false positive
> + * '-Wmaybe-uninitialized' warning which is promoted to an error under
> + * '-Werror'. This problem is not seen when the compilation is performed with
> + * older GCC versions.
> + */
> +#pragma GCC diagnostic push
> +#if defined(__GNUC__) && __GNUC__ >= 15
> +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wmaybe-uninitialized"
> +#endif
>   		u16 new = be16_to_cpup(field++);
> +#pragma GCC diagnostic pop
>   
>   		if (is_32bit) {
>   			/*
> 
> base-commit: 1f318b96cc84d7c2ab792fcc0bfd42a7ca890681

Re: [PATCH] selftests/powerpc: Suppress false positive -Wmaybe-uninitialized with GCC 15

[Amit Machhiwal]

Hi Christhophe,

Thanks for looking at the patch. Please find my comments inline:j

On 2026/03/10 11:54 AM, Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP) wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 10/03/2026 à 11:15, Amit Machhiwal a écrit :
> > GCC 15 reports the below false positive '-Wmaybe-uninitialized' warning
> > in vphn_unpack_associativity() when building the powerpc selftests.
> > 
> >    # make -C tools/testing/selftests TARGETS="powerpc"
> >    [...]
> >      CC       test-vphn
> >    In file included from test-vphn.c:3:
> >    In function ‘vphn_unpack_associativity’,
> >        inlined from ‘test_one’ at test-vphn.c:371:2,
> >        inlined from ‘test_vphn’ at test-vphn.c:399:9:
> >    test-vphn.c:10:33: error: ‘be_packed’ may be used uninitialized [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> >       10 | #define be16_to_cpup(x)         bswap_16(*x)
> >          |                                 ^~~~~~~~
> >    vphn.c:42:27: note: in expansion of macro ‘be16_to_cpup’
> >       42 |                 u16 new = be16_to_cpup(field++);
> >          |                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> >    In file included from test-vphn.c:19:
> >    vphn.c: In function ‘test_vphn’:
> >    vphn.c:27:16: note: ‘be_packed’ declared here
> >       27 |         __be64 be_packed[VPHN_REGISTER_COUNT];
> >          |                ^~~~~~~~~
> >    cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> > 
> > When vphn_unpack_associativity() is called from hcall_vphn(), this error
> > is not seen during compilation because GCC 15 seems to consider 'retbuf'
> > always populated from the hypervisor which is eventually referred by
> > 'be_packed'. However, GCC 15's dataflow analysis can’t prove the same
> > before the first dereference when vphn_unpack_associativity() is called
> > from test_one() with pre-initialized array of 'struct test'. This
> > results in a false positive warning which is promoted to an error under
> > '-Werror'. This problem is not seen when the compilation is performed
> > with GCC 13 and 14.
> > 
> > Suppress the warning locally around the offending statement when
> > building with GCC 15 using a diagnostic pragma. This keeps the build
> > working while limiting the scope of the suppression to the specific
> > statement that triggers the false positive. An issue [1] has also been
> > created on GCC bugzilla.
> 
> Usually when we get this kind of warning this is because the code is too
> complex. We should try to make it more obvious instead of just hiding the
> warning.

The real issue here is that GCC 15 emits '-Wmaybe-uninitialized' due to
type punning between __be64[] and __b16* when accessing the buffer via
be16_to_cpup(). The underlying object is fully initialized but GCC 15
fails to track the aliasing due to the strict aliasing violation here.
Please refer [1] and [2].

The selftest compiles fine with '-fno-strict-aliasing'. I see that when
we build vphn.c while compiling the kernel, the top level Makefile
includes '-fno-strict-aliasing' flag always.

So, I believe the same flag should be used to build vphn tests when
compiling vphn.c via the selftests. I'll send the v2 to achieve this
thus avoiding the compilation failure.

Please let me know you have different thoughts.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124427 
[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99768

~Amit

> 
> Here the for loop is a bit misleading.
> 
> > 
> > [1] https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgcc.gnu.org%2Fbugzilla%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D124427&data=05%7C02%7Cchristophe.leroy%40csgroup.eu%7C06a4d55b55f24c5cf00208de7e8e3676%7C8b87af7d86474dc78df45f69a2011bb5%7C0%7C0%7C639087346428583316%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xEfO94N6IfGYhmmapNFduv3OrMarxpjTpZR6B38uR1s%3D&reserved=0
> > 
> > Fixes: 58dae82843f5 ("selftests/powerpc: Add test for VPHN")
> > Reviewed-by: Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@linux.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Amit Machhiwal <amachhiw@linux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >   arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> >   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c
> > index 3f85ece3c872..9bc891143fec 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c
> > @@ -39,7 +39,22 @@ static int vphn_unpack_associativity(const long *packed, __be32 *unpacked)
> >   		be_packed[i] = cpu_to_be64(packed[i]);
> >   	for (i = 1; i < VPHN_ASSOC_BUFSIZE; i++) {
> > +/*
> > + * When this function is called from hcall_vphn(), GCC 15 seems to consider
> > + * 'retbuf' always populated from the hypervisor which is eventually referred by
> > + * 'be_packed'. However, GCC 15's dataflow analysis can’t prove the same before
> > + * the first dereference when this function is called from test_one() with
> > + * pre-initialized array of 'struct test'. This results in a false positive
> > + * '-Wmaybe-uninitialized' warning which is promoted to an error under
> > + * '-Werror'. This problem is not seen when the compilation is performed with
> > + * older GCC versions.
> > + */
> > +#pragma GCC diagnostic push
> > +#if defined(__GNUC__) && __GNUC__ >= 15
> > +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wmaybe-uninitialized"
> > +#endif
> >   		u16 new = be16_to_cpup(field++);
> > +#pragma GCC diagnostic pop
> >   		if (is_32bit) {
> >   			/*
> > 
> > base-commit: 1f318b96cc84d7c2ab792fcc0bfd42a7ca890681
> 

Re: [PATCH] selftests/powerpc: Suppress false positive -Wmaybe-uninitialized with GCC 15

[David Laight]

On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 13:16:26 +0000
Amit Machhiwal <amachhiw@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> Hi Christhophe,
> 
> Thanks for looking at the patch. Please find my comments inline:j
> 
> On 2026/03/10 11:54 AM, Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP) wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Le 10/03/2026 à 11:15, Amit Machhiwal a écrit :  
> > > GCC 15 reports the below false positive '-Wmaybe-uninitialized' warning
> > > in vphn_unpack_associativity() when building the powerpc selftests.
> > > 
> > >    # make -C tools/testing/selftests TARGETS="powerpc"
> > >    [...]
> > >      CC       test-vphn
> > >    In file included from test-vphn.c:3:
> > >    In function ‘vphn_unpack_associativity’,
> > >        inlined from ‘test_one’ at test-vphn.c:371:2,
> > >        inlined from ‘test_vphn’ at test-vphn.c:399:9:
> > >    test-vphn.c:10:33: error: ‘be_packed’ may be used uninitialized [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> > >       10 | #define be16_to_cpup(x)         bswap_16(*x)
> > >          |                                 ^~~~~~~~
> > >    vphn.c:42:27: note: in expansion of macro ‘be16_to_cpup’
> > >       42 |                 u16 new = be16_to_cpup(field++);
> > >          |                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >    In file included from test-vphn.c:19:
> > >    vphn.c: In function ‘test_vphn’:
> > >    vphn.c:27:16: note: ‘be_packed’ declared here
> > >       27 |         __be64 be_packed[VPHN_REGISTER_COUNT];
> > >          |                ^~~~~~~~~
> > >    cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> > > 
> > > When vphn_unpack_associativity() is called from hcall_vphn(), this error
> > > is not seen during compilation because GCC 15 seems to consider 'retbuf'
> > > always populated from the hypervisor which is eventually referred by
> > > 'be_packed'. However, GCC 15's dataflow analysis can’t prove the same
> > > before the first dereference when vphn_unpack_associativity() is called
> > > from test_one() with pre-initialized array of 'struct test'. This
> > > results in a false positive warning which is promoted to an error under
> > > '-Werror'. This problem is not seen when the compilation is performed
> > > with GCC 13 and 14.
> > > 
> > > Suppress the warning locally around the offending statement when
> > > building with GCC 15 using a diagnostic pragma. This keeps the build
> > > working while limiting the scope of the suppression to the specific
> > > statement that triggers the false positive. An issue [1] has also been
> > > created on GCC bugzilla.  
> > 
> > Usually when we get this kind of warning this is because the code is too
> > complex. We should try to make it more obvious instead of just hiding the
> > warning.  
> 
> The real issue here is that GCC 15 emits '-Wmaybe-uninitialized' due to
> type punning between __be64[] and __b16* when accessing the buffer via
> be16_to_cpup(). The underlying object is fully initialized but GCC 15
> fails to track the aliasing due to the strict aliasing violation here.

Nope, I think it is tracking it correctly.
The writes to be_packed[] are of 64bit values.
The only reads of that memory are 16bit ones through field[].
With 'strict aliasing' the compiler doesn't have to order those accesses.
Indeed, it is allowed to completely optimise away the first loop.

If you cast to 'unsigned char *' then the accesses do have to be ordered.
gcc will also treat accesses to different members of a union as being ordered
(the C stand doesn't require this, IIRC s/union/struct/ is valid).

	David 

> Please refer [1] and [2].
> 
> The selftest compiles fine with '-fno-strict-aliasing'. I see that when
> we build vphn.c while compiling the kernel, the top level Makefile
> includes '-fno-strict-aliasing' flag always.
> 
> So, I believe the same flag should be used to build vphn tests when
> compiling vphn.c via the selftests. I'll send the v2 to achieve this
> thus avoiding the compilation failure.
> 
> Please let me know you have different thoughts.
> 
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124427 
> [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99768
> 
> ~Amit
> 
> > 
> > Here the for loop is a bit misleading.
> >   
> > > 
> > > [1] https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgcc.gnu.org%2Fbugzilla%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D124427&data=05%7C02%7Cchristophe.leroy%40csgroup.eu%7C06a4d55b55f24c5cf00208de7e8e3676%7C8b87af7d86474dc78df45f69a2011bb5%7C0%7C0%7C639087346428583316%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xEfO94N6IfGYhmmapNFduv3OrMarxpjTpZR6B38uR1s%3D&reserved=0
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 58dae82843f5 ("selftests/powerpc: Add test for VPHN")
> > > Reviewed-by: Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@linux.ibm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Amit Machhiwal <amachhiw@linux.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > >   arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > >   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c
> > > index 3f85ece3c872..9bc891143fec 100644
> > > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c
> > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c
> > > @@ -39,7 +39,22 @@ static int vphn_unpack_associativity(const long *packed, __be32 *unpacked)
> > >   		be_packed[i] = cpu_to_be64(packed[i]);
> > >   	for (i = 1; i < VPHN_ASSOC_BUFSIZE; i++) {
> > > +/*
> > > + * When this function is called from hcall_vphn(), GCC 15 seems to consider
> > > + * 'retbuf' always populated from the hypervisor which is eventually referred by
> > > + * 'be_packed'. However, GCC 15's dataflow analysis can’t prove the same before
> > > + * the first dereference when this function is called from test_one() with
> > > + * pre-initialized array of 'struct test'. This results in a false positive
> > > + * '-Wmaybe-uninitialized' warning which is promoted to an error under
> > > + * '-Werror'. This problem is not seen when the compilation is performed with
> > > + * older GCC versions.
> > > + */
> > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic push
> > > +#if defined(__GNUC__) && __GNUC__ >= 15
> > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wmaybe-uninitialized"
> > > +#endif
> > >   		u16 new = be16_to_cpup(field++);
> > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic pop
> > >   		if (is_32bit) {
> > >   			/*
> > > 
> > > base-commit: 1f318b96cc84d7c2ab792fcc0bfd42a7ca890681  
> >   
> 

Re: [PATCH] selftests/powerpc: Suppress false positive -Wmaybe-uninitialized with GCC 15

[Amit Machhiwal]

Hi David,

Thanks for looking into the patch and apologies for a late response.
Please find my comments inline below:

On 2026/03/12 06:56 PM, David Laight wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2026 13:16:26 +0000
> Amit Machhiwal <amachhiw@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Christhophe,
> > 
> > Thanks for looking at the patch. Please find my comments inline:j
> > 
> > On 2026/03/10 11:54 AM, Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP) wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Le 10/03/2026 à 11:15, Amit Machhiwal a écrit :  
> > > > GCC 15 reports the below false positive '-Wmaybe-uninitialized' warning
> > > > in vphn_unpack_associativity() when building the powerpc selftests.
> > > > 
> > > >    # make -C tools/testing/selftests TARGETS="powerpc"
> > > >    [...]
> > > >      CC       test-vphn
> > > >    In file included from test-vphn.c:3:
> > > >    In function ‘vphn_unpack_associativity’,
> > > >        inlined from ‘test_one’ at test-vphn.c:371:2,
> > > >        inlined from ‘test_vphn’ at test-vphn.c:399:9:
> > > >    test-vphn.c:10:33: error: ‘be_packed’ may be used uninitialized [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> > > >       10 | #define be16_to_cpup(x)         bswap_16(*x)
> > > >          |                                 ^~~~~~~~
> > > >    vphn.c:42:27: note: in expansion of macro ‘be16_to_cpup’
> > > >       42 |                 u16 new = be16_to_cpup(field++);
> > > >          |                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >    In file included from test-vphn.c:19:
> > > >    vphn.c: In function ‘test_vphn’:
> > > >    vphn.c:27:16: note: ‘be_packed’ declared here
> > > >       27 |         __be64 be_packed[VPHN_REGISTER_COUNT];
> > > >          |                ^~~~~~~~~
> > > >    cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> > > > 
> > > > When vphn_unpack_associativity() is called from hcall_vphn(), this error
> > > > is not seen during compilation because GCC 15 seems to consider 'retbuf'
> > > > always populated from the hypervisor which is eventually referred by
> > > > 'be_packed'. However, GCC 15's dataflow analysis can’t prove the same
> > > > before the first dereference when vphn_unpack_associativity() is called
> > > > from test_one() with pre-initialized array of 'struct test'. This
> > > > results in a false positive warning which is promoted to an error under
> > > > '-Werror'. This problem is not seen when the compilation is performed
> > > > with GCC 13 and 14.
> > > > 
> > > > Suppress the warning locally around the offending statement when
> > > > building with GCC 15 using a diagnostic pragma. This keeps the build
> > > > working while limiting the scope of the suppression to the specific
> > > > statement that triggers the false positive. An issue [1] has also been
> > > > created on GCC bugzilla.  
> > > 
> > > Usually when we get this kind of warning this is because the code is too
> > > complex. We should try to make it more obvious instead of just hiding the
> > > warning.  
> > 
> > The real issue here is that GCC 15 emits '-Wmaybe-uninitialized' due to
> > type punning between __be64[] and __b16* when accessing the buffer via
> > be16_to_cpup(). The underlying object is fully initialized but GCC 15
> > fails to track the aliasing due to the strict aliasing violation here.
> 
> Nope, I think it is tracking it correctly.
> The writes to be_packed[] are of 64bit values.
> The only reads of that memory are 16bit ones through field[].
> With 'strict aliasing' the compiler doesn't have to order those accesses.
> Indeed, it is allowed to completely optimise away the first loop.

Quoting the below statement from the discussion with GCC folks at [1]

  "This code has aliasing violations in it. The uninitialized happens due 
  to the undefined code due to the alias violations."
  
Having mentioned that and looking at the discussion happened at [2],
the '-Wmaybe-uninitialized' seems to be a case of a bad diagnostic
instead where the actual warning should have been pointing to a
Wstrict-aliasing issue which already is being tracked in the issue.

> If you cast to 'unsigned char *' then the accesses do have to be ordered.
> gcc will also treat accesses to different members of a union as being ordered
> (the C stand doesn't require this, IIRC s/union/struct/ is valid).

True, an union could be used to avoid this type punning problem but I
think its easier (and probablty better at this point) to avoid the
warning while building the vphn.c in test with '-fno-strict-aliasing'
immitating the way its compiled in kernel.

~Amit

> 	David 
> 
> > Please refer [1] and [2].
> > 
> > The selftest compiles fine with '-fno-strict-aliasing'. I see that when
> > we build vphn.c while compiling the kernel, the top level Makefile
> > includes '-fno-strict-aliasing' flag always.
> > 
> > So, I believe the same flag should be used to build vphn tests when
> > compiling vphn.c via the selftests. I'll send the v2 to achieve this
> > thus avoiding the compilation failure.
> > 
> > Please let me know you have different thoughts.
> > 
> > [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124427 
> > [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99768
> > 
> > ~Amit
> > 
> > > 
> > > Here the for loop is a bit misleading.
> > >   
> > > > 
> > > > [1] https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgcc.gnu.org%2Fbugzilla%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D124427&data=05%7C02%7Cchristophe.leroy%40csgroup.eu%7C06a4d55b55f24c5cf00208de7e8e3676%7C8b87af7d86474dc78df45f69a2011bb5%7C0%7C0%7C639087346428583316%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xEfO94N6IfGYhmmapNFduv3OrMarxpjTpZR6B38uR1s%3D&reserved=0
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: 58dae82843f5 ("selftests/powerpc: Add test for VPHN")
> > > > Reviewed-by: Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Amit Machhiwal <amachhiw@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >   arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > > >   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c
> > > > index 3f85ece3c872..9bc891143fec 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/vphn.c
> > > > @@ -39,7 +39,22 @@ static int vphn_unpack_associativity(const long *packed, __be32 *unpacked)
> > > >   		be_packed[i] = cpu_to_be64(packed[i]);
> > > >   	for (i = 1; i < VPHN_ASSOC_BUFSIZE; i++) {
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * When this function is called from hcall_vphn(), GCC 15 seems to consider
> > > > + * 'retbuf' always populated from the hypervisor which is eventually referred by
> > > > + * 'be_packed'. However, GCC 15's dataflow analysis can’t prove the same before
> > > > + * the first dereference when this function is called from test_one() with
> > > > + * pre-initialized array of 'struct test'. This results in a false positive
> > > > + * '-Wmaybe-uninitialized' warning which is promoted to an error under
> > > > + * '-Werror'. This problem is not seen when the compilation is performed with
> > > > + * older GCC versions.
> > > > + */
> > > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic push
> > > > +#if defined(__GNUC__) && __GNUC__ >= 15
> > > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wmaybe-uninitialized"
> > > > +#endif
> > > >   		u16 new = be16_to_cpup(field++);
> > > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic pop
> > > >   		if (is_32bit) {
> > > >   			/*
> > > > 
> > > > base-commit: 1f318b96cc84d7c2ab792fcc0bfd42a7ca890681  
> > >   
> > 
>