From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4BC848F010; Fri, 9 Oct 2026 20:38:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791578286; cv=none; b=MLHwsN2FPgLQSi0LHTw9XE2lKHLa//bNoNUzfEZgTtIKElS2Mu0XWaJjBCznXt/Fcd/6sNLFet1puTDByCyNTyZ5ENnBuSvO8ySnjXoo+SEhzcR97h5L3eSVN74WvAkEDNxudI4KKcQHj7BzM+pV5C1TCzOHnIgB7Q0ZZAL5SNo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791578286; c=relaxed/simple; bh=YktzTOyfvWAmqwXJmdGMuIxjdvwEzwFF82hFEM943bE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=A72ntxrqGsEZv8O4iHJ6d1TDieNdLBLGCSRmOOdgHVKhfWdkb2Pvcivr3BYmCQ5n/lbh/zO31QefMT0DbseusRgvUaUA4z9LaPyvIQnM+C5fDSLykjd1ButCqIrm8oD7V5KRUGKB8O5gW51cmOqP6El55c93vj0lh51t42sMzkE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=kTK4emPZ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="kTK4emPZ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 78D001F000FF; Fri, 9 Oct 2026 20:38:03 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1791578285; bh=AunY85NC2tuR3TivcSehZQCk3Ioj7yk6wgF6kC4VZK4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=kTK4emPZfS6GpLkto6IDLQqCJiq2Jji9n5vdQsj4b6CTPOJaoHkUWrIM8BrbP6KN+ sksWs/YwcLAyq5scNwmw9XYIjO2AOm8ljVFfaSyuA0UcJwlhUi0Soe3cF6l8SDUCoW DE9TQ9g9nAnX2PPgUDmnmFRbggyiictYqBLpc3wH2VrTLGkbVSfYma3CTvW6HoSABK ccakjJG/84Oy3id9DFmh8w0PrnCUviK8UrE6XoTCBIXQA/GQONOM0TPEaqCgmrHvTe 4nYc8JJ2SPWCP9HcJ280APOXWp/BmvF7PNMxiQ6W9cOgT0iqMDTWl0A9G2hKA9BYbj PbdkCMR3r7+EA== Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2026 22:38:01 +0200 From: Nathan Chancellor To: Kuan-Wei Chiu Cc: Andrew Morton , Nick Desaulniers , Bill Wendling , Justin Stitt , Guan-Chun Wu <409411716@gms.tku.edu.tw>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/base64: Silence clang-24 -Wconstant-conversion with diag pragmas Message-ID: <20261009203801.GA774682@ax162> References: <20261008-base64-silence-clang-24-constant-conversion-v1-1-0858b60b23c8@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: llvm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Sat, Oct 10, 2026 at 12:59:01AM +0800, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote: > Reading the issue comment in the link, it seems somewhat subjective and > controversial whether the compiler should emit a warning in this > scenario. I'm not a compiler expert, but from a user's perspective, > it's a bit disappointing when we have to deal with this. When we are > confident that the code is correct and have provided the compiler with > enough context to determine that there is no runtime issue, suddenly > getting a new warning after an upgrade is a bit frustrating. But > anyway, let's go with this workaround to keep the compiler happy. Yes, I 100% agree. I have tried to make that a little clearer to the clang folks, I guess we will see where that goes. Thanks for being pragmatic here. We can always revisit this depending on how the upstream discussions go but I would rather get this rolling on our side now, as our CI has been broken for over three weeks and has missed other regressions in the meantime. -- Cheers, Nathan