linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: core: Fix Sparse incompatible types warning

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:13:34 +0200
From:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
	alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: core: Fix Sparse incompatible types warning

On czw, 2014-04-10 at 04:01 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:28:59PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> 
> > I had a look at the sparse code and the problem is that it sets the
> > default return type of sizeof according to the type of the host it
> > was compiled on (either unsigned int or unsigned long). It can be
> > overwritten by switches like -m32, but of course wont work when
> > cross compiling. So if your host system is 64bit, but your target
> > system is 32bit you'll get that warning.
> 
> Not that simple.  First of all, you *need* to tell sparse what target
> to expect; size_t is the least of your troubles - sizeof(long) has
> far more widespread impact.  If you don't get -m64 or -m32 in CFLAGS
> (and on quite a few cross-builds you get it, simply because the target
> is biarch and gcc itself needs to know what to generate), you need
> to set it in CHECKFLAGS, along with other target-specific things.
> Example:
> arch/ia64/Makefile:21:CHECKFLAGS        += -m64 -D__ia64=1 -D__ia64__=1 -D_LP64 -D__LP64__
> 
> With the defaults being what they are (since commit 7aa79f "Adding default for
> m64/m32 handle"), we probably need explicit -m32 in CHECKFLAGS for a bunch
> of 32bit targets.  Defaults are iffy, BTW - it's not even "do as host does",
> it's "64bit if the host is amd64, 32bit otherwise" ;-/
> 
> Again, CHECKFLAGS need to be set; that's normally done in arch/*/Makefile.

In my case it was cross compile on x86_64 for ARM so adding -m32 to
CHECKFLAGS in arch/arm/Makefile helped.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

--
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/