[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180313180806.GO4043@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 19:08:06 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org,
Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>,
kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
kbuild-all@...org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
tipbuild@...or.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:locking/core 9/11]
include/asm-generic/atomic-instrumented.h:288:24: sparse: cast truncates
bits from constant value (100 becomes 0)
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 07:00:17PM +0100, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> The issue here is that sparse has a whole class of warnings that are
> given very early (here at expansion of constant expressions), before
> eliminating code from branches that are never taken (which, surprise,
> need itself to have constant expressions already expanded).
>
> It's often annoying like the case here.
> OTOH, I don't think it's always a bad thing. Sometimes we want to
> have warnings even from code we know will not be executed (in this
> config but maybe it will in another one).
Is that really a valid concern with all the automated randconfig
building going on today?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists