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]

Message-ID: <488ED165.5040203@oracle.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:14:29 +0800
From:	Wenji Huang <wenji.huang@...cle.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	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

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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

Same problem on x86/gcc 3.4.6, but will pass on gcc 4.x

Regards,
Wenji
--
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/