[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1257400886.13611.98.camel@pasglop>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:01:26 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@...ibm.com>, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] BUILD_BUG_ON: make it handle more cases
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 14:15 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> BUILD_BUG_ON used to use the optimizer to do code elimination or fail
> at link time; it was changed to first the size of a negative array (a
> nicer compile time error), then (in
> 8c87df457cb58fe75b9b893007917cf8095660a0) to a bitfield.
What's the status with this patch ? The lack of it breaks my KVM stuff
in powerpc...
Cheers,
Ben.
> bitfields: needs a literal constant at parse time, and can't be put under
> "if (__builtin_constant_p(x))" for example.
> negative array: can handle anything, but if the compiler can't tell it's
> a constant, silently has no effect.
> link time: breaks link if the compiler can't determine the value, but the
> linker output is not usually as informative as a compiler error.
>
> If we use the negative-array-size method *and* the link time trick,
> we get the ability to use BUILD_BUG_ON() under __builtin_constant_p()
> branches, and maximal ability for the compiler to detect errors at
> build time.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.h b/include/linux/kernel.h
> --- a/include/linux/kernel.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
> @@ -683,12 +683,6 @@ struct sysinfo {
> char _f[20-2*sizeof(long)-sizeof(int)]; /* Padding: libc5 uses this.. */
> };
>
> -/* Force a compilation error if condition is true */
> -#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) ((void)BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(condition))
> -
> -/* Force a compilation error if condition is constant and true */
> -#define MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON(cond) ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2 * !!(cond)]))
> -
> /* Force a compilation error if condition is true, but also produce a
> result (of value 0 and type size_t), so the expression can be used
> e.g. in a structure initializer (or where-ever else comma expressions
> @@ -696,6 +690,33 @@ struct sysinfo {
> #define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) (sizeof(struct { int:-!!(e); }))
> #define BUILD_BUG_ON_NULL(e) ((void *)sizeof(struct { int:-!!(e); }))
>
> +/**
> + * BUILD_BUG_ON - break compile if a condition is true.
> + * @cond: the condition which the compiler should know is false.
> + *
> + * If you have some code which relies on certain constants being equal, or
> + * other compile-time-evaluated condition, you should use BUILD_BUG_ON to
> + * detect if someone changes it.
> + *
> + * The implementation uses gcc's reluctance to create a negative array, but
> + * gcc (as of 4.4) only emits that error for obvious cases (eg. not arguments
> + * to inline functions). So as a fallback we use the optimizer; if it can't
> + * prove the condition is false, it will cause a link error on the undefined
> + * "__build_bug_on_failed". This error message can be harder to track down
> + * though, hence the two different methods.
> + */
> +#ifndef __OPTIMIZE__
> +#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)]))
> +#else
> +extern int __build_bug_on_failed;
> +#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) \
> + do { \
> + ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)])); \
> + if (condition) __build_bug_on_failed = 1; \
> + } while(0)
> +#endif
> +#define MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) BUILD_BUG_ON(condition)
> +
> /* Trap pasters of __FUNCTION__ at compile-time */
> #define __FUNCTION__ (__func__)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists