From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@google.com>,
oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>,
"Maciej Żenczykowski" <maze@google.com>,
"Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: include/net/sock.h:2100:16: sparse: sparse: cast to non-scalar
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 19:21:26 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260112192126.GJ3634291@ZenIV> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260112123722.GJ830755@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 01:37:22PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > #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.
From experimenting with godbolt.org:
clang gcc icc
__typeof_unqual__ >= 19.0.1 >= 14.1 no
this trick >= 3.0.0 >= 8.4 >= 13.0.1
our minima 15.0.0 8.1
So __typeof_unqual__ is well out of our range; this trick is slightly
out of range, but nowhere near as bad. Prior to 8.4 gcc had a bug
in that area, unfortunately ;-/
Might make sense to reconsider it next time we bump gcc minimum...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-12 19:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-10 21:06 include/net/sock.h:2100:16: sparse: sparse: cast to non-scalar kernel test robot
2026-01-10 22:15 ` Al Viro
2026-01-10 22:35 ` Al Viro
2026-01-11 10:08 ` Eric Dumazet
2026-01-12 12:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-11 18:20 ` Al Viro
2026-01-11 18:51 ` Al Viro
2026-01-12 12:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-12 15:02 ` Will Deacon
2026-01-12 19:21 ` Al Viro [this message]
2026-01-12 21:16 ` Al Viro
2026-01-12 22:39 ` David Laight
2026-01-13 0:28 ` Al Viro
2026-01-12 12:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-12 19:30 ` Al Viro
2026-01-13 15:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-12 0:49 ` Philip Li
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-12-06 10:09 kernel test robot
2025-08-25 4:45 kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260112192126.GJ3634291@ZenIV \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maze@google.com \
--cc=oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox