linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure

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:	Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:00:55 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure


* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Dave,
> 
> Today's linux-next build (sparc64 defconfig) failed like this:
> 
> kernel/time/tick-common.c: In function `tick_check_new_device':
> kernel/time/tick-common.c:210: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
> kernel/time/tick-common.c:223: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
> kernel/time/tick-common.c:255: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
> 
> gcc is version 3.4.5 sparc64 cross compiler (powercp64 host).
> 
> The below patch fixes it.
>
> when you take the address of the result.  Noticed on a sparc64 compile
> using a version 3.4.5 cross compiler.
> 
> kernel/time/tick-common.c: In function `tick_check_new_device':
> kernel/time/tick-common.c:210: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
> kernel/time/tick-common.c:223: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
> kernel/time/tick-common.c:255: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> ---
>  include/linux/cpumask.h |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpumask.h b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> index 96d0509..d3219d7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpumask.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> @@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ static inline const cpumask_t *get_cpu_mask(unsigned int cpu)
>   * gcc optimizes it out (it's a constant) and there's no huge stack
>   * variable created:
>   */
> -#define cpumask_of_cpu(cpu) ({ *get_cpu_mask(cpu); })
> +#define cpumask_of_cpu(cpu) (*get_cpu_mask(cpu))

hm, i'm wondering - is this a compiler bug?

	Ingo
--
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/