From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932453AbeCSHpD (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Mar 2018 03:45:03 -0400 Received: from mail-pl0-f54.google.com ([209.85.160.54]:39620 "EHLO mail-pl0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751668AbeCSHpC (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Mar 2018 03:45:02 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvLzeEGM1G33XslYzkynWvJyU3twm7zqIjIH2W1cpYsKSc5DM42uXYt/y4Nd+usW1ql2LMX3g== Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:44:56 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky To: Jiri Olsa Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Namhyung Kim , Jiri Olsa , Shuah Khan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sergey Senozhatsky , Josh Poimboeuf Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools: Fix str_error_r() Werror=restrict build Message-ID: <20180319074456.GA3315@jagdpanzerIV> References: <20180319055504.757-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> <20180319071821.GA9988@krava> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20180319071821.GA9988@krava> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On (03/19/18 08:18), Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 02:55:04PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > Commit c8b5f2c96d1bf6c ("tools: Introduce str_error_r()") added > > an str_error_r() wrapper which makes gcc8 unhappy due to > > restrict-qualified parameter aliasing violation: > > > > ../lib/str_error_r.c: In function ‘str_error_r’: > > ../lib/str_error_r.c:25:3: error: passing argument 1 to restrict-qualified parameter aliases with argument 5 [-Werror=restrict] > > snprintf(buf, buflen, "INTERNAL ERROR: strerror_r(%d, %p, %zd)=%d", errnum, buf, buflen, err); > > ^~~~~~~~ > > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > > > > Workaround that aliasing error by creating an additional stack > > variable which holds the buf pointer value we passed to strerror_r(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky > > Josh posted another way to fix it: > https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=152116992412107&w=2 Oh, thanks for the pointers. > your patch keeps the same output, I dont mind either way ;-) Thanks. No strong opinion, either way is OK :) Can't tell for sure if snprintf(... "%p", buf) is significantly better than snprintf(... "[buf]"), but Arnaldo wanted to have the first version. -ss