[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiZgzKMw7AkahZH-iCxJLAadS_nrzVJiCqrsFWfg7n_Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2021 18:44:39 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 5.15
On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 6:18 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>
> Replacing "strlen(UTS_RELEASE)" with "sizeof(UTS_RELEASE) - 1" seems to do
> the trick, at least with gcc 11.2 and v5.15. I just wonder if that would be
> acceptable. Any idea ?
Looks sane to me.
I don't understand why gcc complains about that thing in the first
place, much less why it only happens on m68k, but whatever...
The other - and perhaps better - option would be to just uninline
memcpy_and_pad() entirely, move it to lib/string.c, and only have the
declaration in <linux/string.h>.
Because the only reason to have it as an inline function is when the
compiler can statically optimize a call site: but it's really not a
performance-critical function to begin with, and clearly the compiler
instead just *breaks* rather than optimize that call-site.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists