[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160502163225.8b00a5ef7170a0f2533438e9@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 16:32:25 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
Martin Jambor <mjambor@...e.cz>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madhani@...gic.com>,
Dept-Eng QLA2xxx Upstream <qla2xxx-upstream@...gic.com>,
Jan Hubicka <hubicka@....cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] byteswap: try to avoid __builtin_constant_p gcc bug
On Tue, 03 May 2016 01:10:16 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Monday 02 May 2016 16:02:18 Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 May 2016 23:48:19 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> >
> > > This is another attempt to avoid a regression in wwn_to_u64() after
> > > that started using get_unaligned_be64(), which in turn ran into a
> > > bug on gcc-4.9 through 6.1.
> >
> > I'm still getting a couple screenfuls of things like
> >
> > net/tipc/name_distr.c: In function 'tipc_named_process_backlog':
> > net/tipc/name_distr.c:330: warning: format '%u' expects type 'unsigned int', but argument 3 has type 'unsigned int'
> > net/tipc/name_distr.c:330: warning: format '%u' expects type 'unsigned int', but argument 4 has type 'unsigned int'
> > net/tipc/name_distr.c:330: warning: format '%u' expects type 'unsigned int', but argument 5 has type 'unsigned int'
> > net/tipc/name_distr.c:330: warning: format '%u' expects type 'unsigned int', but argument 7 has type 'unsigned int'
>
> I've built a few thousand kernels (arm32 with gcc-6.1) with the patch applied,
> but didn't see this one. What target architecture and compiler version produced
> this? Does it go away if you add a (__u32) cast? I don't even know what the
> warning is trying to tell me.
heh, I didn't actually read it.
Hopefully we can write this off as a gcc-4.4.4 glitch. 4.8.4 is OK.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists