linux-kernel - Re: next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801)

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: <20160801145724.14528.qmail@ns.sciencehorizons.net>
Date:	1 Aug 2016 10:57:24 -0400
From:	"George Spelvin" <linux@...encehorizons.net>
To:	arnd@...db.de, geert@...ux-m68k.org,
	kernel-build-reports@...ts.linaro.org
Cc:	bot@...nelci.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux@...encehorizons.net
Subject: Re: next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801)

Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>> Warnings:
>>     lib/test_hash.c:224:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef]
>>     lib/test_hash.c:229:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef]
>>     lib/test_hash.c:234:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64" is not defined [-Wundef]
>>     lib/test_hash.c:146:2: warning: missing braces around initializer [-Wmissing-braces]
>>     lib/test_hash.c:146:2: warning: (near initialization for 'hash_or[0]') [-Wmissing-braces]

> Upgrading to gcc-4.9 will fix avoid that, and a couple of workarounds have
> been discussed before, but I don't know why none of them got merged.

Geert Uytterhoeven was the first to find this problem and propose a
patch, which I acked, and thought it was going in via the m68k tree.
Helge Deller did the same a couple days later, and I told him not to
bother because Geert had taken care of it.

Here are the patches:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=146454366031110
https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=146454366131111

Perhaps there was some confusion about whose version was going in, or
via which tree.  Maybe I was wrong to assume Geert was putting them in
the m68k tree.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 19:28:42 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
wrote:
> Some versions of gcc don't like tests for the value of an undefined
> preprocessor symbol, even in the #else branch of an #ifndef:
> 
>     lib/test_hash.c:224:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef]
>      #elif HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1
> 	   ^
>     lib/test_hash.c:229:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef]
>      #elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 != 1
> 	   ^
>     lib/test_hash.c:234:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64" is not defined [-Wundef]
>      #elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 != 1
> 	   ^
> 
> Seen with gcc 4.9, not seen with 4.1.2.
> 
> Change the logic to only check the value inside an #ifdef to fix this.
> 
> Fixes: 468a9428521e7d00 ("<linux/hash.h>: Add support for architecture-specific functions")
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
> ---
>  lib/test_hash.c | 24 +++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/test_hash.c b/lib/test_hash.c
> index fd7a677100ebe935..a06ac379ad429c6b 100644
> --- a/lib/test_hash.c
> +++ b/lib/test_hash.c
> @@ -219,21 +219,27 @@ test_hash_init(void)
>  	}
>  
>  	/* Issue notices about skipped tests. */
> -#ifndef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32
> -	pr_info("__hash_32() has no arch implementation to test.");
> -#elif HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1
> +#ifdef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32
> +#if HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1
>  	pr_info("__hash_32() is arch-specific; not compared to generic.");
>  #endif
> -#ifndef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32
> -	pr_info("hash_32() has no arch implementation to test.");
> -#elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 != 1
> +#else
> +	pr_info("__hash_32() has no arch implementation to test.");
> +#endif
> +#ifdef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32
> +#if HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 != 1
>  	pr_info("hash_32() is arch-specific; not compared to generic.");
>  #endif
> -#ifndef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64
> -	pr_info("hash_64() has no arch implementation to test.");
> -#elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 != 1
> +#else
> +	pr_info("hash_32() has no arch implementation to test.");
> +#endif
> +#ifdef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64
> +#if HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 != 1
>  	pr_info("hash_64() is arch-specific; not compared to generic.");
>  #endif
> +#else
> +	pr_info("hash_64() has no arch implementation to test.");
> +#endif
>  
>  	pr_notice("%u tests passed.", tests);
>  
> -- 
> 1.9.1
>