[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200720210252.GO30544@gate.crashing.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 16:02:52 -0500
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Geoff Levand <geoff@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/boot: Use address-of operator on section symbols
Hi!
On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 09:50:50AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 6:02 AM Nathan Chancellor
> <natechancellor@...il.com> wrote:
> > /* If we have an image attached to us, it overrides anything
> > * supplied by the loader. */
> > - if (_initrd_end > _initrd_start) {
> > + if (&_initrd_end > &_initrd_start) {
>
> Are you sure that fix is correct?
>
> extern char _initrd_start[];
> extern char _initrd_end[];
> extern char _esm_blob_start[];
> extern char _esm_blob_end[];
>
> Of course the result of their comparison is a constant, as the addresses
> are constant. If clangs warns about it, perhaps that warning should be moved
> to W=1?
>
> But adding "&" is not correct, according to C.
Why not?
6.5.3.2/3
The unary & operator yields the address of its operand. [...]
Otherwise, the result is a pointer to the object or function designated
by its operand.
This is the same as using the name of an array without anything else,
yes. It is a bit clearer if it would not be declared as array, perhaps,
but it is correct just fine like this.
Segher
Powered by blists - more mailing lists