[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6cad9460-3a9d-8ede-8997-5bf11c9621c4@infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 22:03:40 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: warning: '______f' is static but declared in inline function in
<string.h>
Hi,
I regularly get 50 MB - 60 MB files during kernel randconfig builds.
These large files mostly contain (many repeats of; e.g., 124,594):
In file included from ../include/linux/string.h:6:0,
from ../include/linux/uuid.h:20,
from ../include/linux/mod_devicetable.h:13,
from ../scripts/mod/devicetable-offsets.c:3:
../include/linux/compiler.h:64:4: warning: '______f' is static but declared in inline function 'strcpy' which is not static [enabled by default]
______f = { \
^
../include/linux/compiler.h:56:23: note: in expansion of macro '__trace_if'
^
../include/linux/string.h:425:2: note: in expansion of macro 'if'
if (p_size == (size_t)-1 && q_size == (size_t)-1)
^
AFAICT, this only happens when CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE=y and
CONFIG_PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES=y. Are these 2 kconfig symbols
incompatible? We could prevent PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES if
FORTIFY_SOURCE=y. (e.g., see patch below)
I am using: gcc (SUSE Linux) 4.8.5
Do some later versions of gcc handle this without making the build output
too noisy? Does the generated code work as expected?
Any patches or suggestions?
(other than DDT)
thanks,
--
~Randy
--- orig/kernel/trace/Kconfig
+++ next/kernel/trace/Kconfig
@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ config PROFILE_ANNOTATED_BRANCHES
on if you need to profile the system's use of these macros.
config PROFILE_ALL_BRANCHES
- bool "Profile all if conditionals"
+ bool "Profile all if conditionals" if !FORTIFY_SOURCE
select TRACE_BRANCH_PROFILING
help
This tracer profiles all branch conditions. Every if ()
Powered by blists - more mailing lists