linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] nfs: fix ISO C90 warning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:58:37 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
cc:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] nfs: fix ISO C90 warning

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:40:19 -0500 Trond Myklebust wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 14:23 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: 
> > > From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
> > > 
> > > Fix gcc ISO C90 warning:
> > > 
> > > fs/nfs/callback.c:356: warning: ISO C90 forbids mixed declarations and code
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/nfs/callback.c |    2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > --- linux-next-20091215.orig/fs/nfs/callback.c
> > > +++ linux-next-20091215/fs/nfs/callback.c
> > > @@ -352,8 +352,8 @@ static int check_gss_callback_principal(
> > >  static int nfs_callback_authenticate(struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct nfs_client *clp;
> > > -	RPC_IFDEBUG(char buf[RPC_MAX_ADDRBUFLEN]);
> > >  	int ret = SVC_OK;
> > > +	RPC_IFDEBUG(char buf[RPC_MAX_ADDRBUFLEN]);
> > >  
> > 
> > What version of gcc is giving rise to this warning?
> 
> > gcc --version
> gcc (GCC) 4.2.1 (SUSE Linux)
> 
> > RPC_IFDEBUG is a macro that either evaluates to its argument, or to
> > nothing, depending on whether or not RPC_DEBUG is defined or not. In
> > neither case should it evaluate to anything illegal under C90 rules
> > afaics.
> 
> Yep.  Odd warning.

Not really. If the debug macro evaluates to nothing then you have:

    struct nfs_client *clp;
    ;
    int ret = SVC_OK;

So you have a stray semicolon, which is interpreted as an empty code
line. That qualifies for the mixed declaration and code case :)

I know it's nitpicking, but ...

Thanks,

	tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/