linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Disable branch profiling macros when sparsed.

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: <20090109.221348.166902734.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:13:48 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	alexey.zaytsev@...il.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Disable branch profiling macros when sparsed.

From: Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@...il.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 08:57:28 +0300

> The macros produce lots of unneeded warnings when
> recursive if(({ .. if() {..} ..})) {..} and such
> are substituted. And there is no point in sparsing
> them anyway. This is useful if someone decides to
> sparse an allyesconfig kernel.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@...il.com>

If even sparse can't handle these things, it's no surprise
how many gcc bogus warning problems we've run into because
of this hairy if() macro.

I don't think it's a good precedence to do this.  It's giving
up on trying to implement the branch tracer in a way that
results in a kernel build that produces useful warnings.
--
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/