linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fix BUILD_BUG_ON() and a couple of bogus uses of it

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <200909221615.31334.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:15:30 +0930
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ben Elliston <bje@....net.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix BUILD_BUG_ON() and a couple of bogus uses of it

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:29:25 am Jan Beulich wrote:
> Note that in the gfp.h, kmemcheck.h, and virtio_config.h cases
> MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() really just serves documentation purposes - even
> if the expression is compile time constant (__builtin_constant_p()
> yields true), the array is still deemed of variable length by gcc, and
> hence the whole expression doesn't have the intended effect.

How annoying.  A gcc build assert extension would be great here?

Thanks,
Rusty.
--
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/