Re: include/net/sock.h:2100:16: sparse: sparse: cast to non-scalar

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 06:20:10PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2026 at 10:35:48PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> > Folks involved in putting that cast in arch/alpha/include/asm/rwonce.h Cc'd...
> 
> FWIW, there's a way to strip qualifiers from *any* non-array type.
> Look:
> 
> void f(void)
> {
> 	const int x;
> 	x = 1;		// an error
> 	typeof(((typeof(x)(*)(void))0)()) y;
> 	y = 2;		// perfectly fine
> }
> 
> The way it works is that qualifiers are stripped from return type when
> deriving a function type.  That was spelled out only in C17; 6.7.6.3[5]
> | If, in the declaration "T D1", D1 has the form
> | D ( parameter-type-list )
> |  or
> | D ( identifier-list[opt] )
> | and the type specified for ident in the declaration "T D" is
> | "derived-declarator-type-list T", then the type specified for ident
> | is "derived-declarator-type-list function returning the unqualified version
> | of T".
> but that "unqualified version of..." matched the common practice in
> earlier variants of standard; they stopped issuing TCs by that point
> (~2014), but both clang and gcc behave that way with any variant of
> standard.
> 
> IOW, this
> 
> #define unqual_non_array(T) __typeof__(((T(*)(void))0)())
> 
> would do the right thing without that _Generic cascade and it'll work
> just fine for e.g. kuid_t.  Using it for an array would trigger an error,
> array-returning functions being forbidden...
> 
> Guys, do you have any problems with replacing __unqual_scalar_typeof()
> uses with that thing?

There is also __typeof_unqual__, but I do not know if that is now
supported by all compilers, if so that is the better option. If not,
your function return type thing is awesome.