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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 22:59:50 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org> cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Subject: Re: [RFC] clang: 'unused-function' warning on static inline functions On Tue, 6 Jun 2017, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > Unfortunately as is the patch doesn't work: > > include/linux/compiler-clang.h:20:9: error: 'inline' macro redefined [-Werror,-Wmacro-redefined] > #define inline inline __attribute__((unused)) > ^ > include/linux/compiler-gcc.h:78:9: note: previous definition is here > #define inline inline notrace > > Another version of David's patch (https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/24/878) > first undefines 'inline' before redefining it: > > #ifdef inline > #undef inline > #define inline inline __attribute__((unused)) > #endif > > This works at least in the sense of not causing compiler errors. I > couldn't validate if it actually still indicates the compiler to > inline a function, since in any case 'inline' is only a > recommendation. In the few experiments I did without the patch clang > didn't make a difference between static inline and non-inline > functions. > > The redefinition above could be used to fix the build error, however > it would imply to lose the extra attributes from compiler-gcc.h. > I've followed up with a patch that handles this behavior in compiler-gcc.h since clang defines __GNUC__ as well, so clang gets both compiler-gcc.h and compiler-clang.h behavior. I've tested it, but please feel free to add your Tested-by for more confidence in the change. Linus, who currently maintains include/linux/compiler*.h changes? I see only an entry for a sparse maintainer. I'd happily manage a cross compiler setup if it would be helpful to prevent this type of issue in the future. First question would be if there is a minimum gcc major version intended to be supported?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists