[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0f5c07b827c3468c8fa3928a93a98bfa@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 19:38:40 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Linus Torvalds' <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Vincent Mailhol <vincent.mailhol@...il.com>, Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, "Nick
Desaulniers" <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>, Jani Nikula
<jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>, Joonas Lahtinen
<joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin@...ulin.net>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>, James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Rikard Falkeborn
<rikard.falkeborn@...il.com>, "linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "llvm@...ts.linux.dev"
<llvm@...ts.linux.dev>, "linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>, "intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org"
<intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>, "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org"
<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, "coresight@...ts.linaro.org"
<coresight@...ts.linaro.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "uecker@...raz.at" <uecker@...raz.at>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 02/10] compiler.h: add is_const() as a replacement of
__is_constexpr()
From: Linus Torvalds
> Sent: 06 December 2024 19:15
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 at 11:07, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm missing the compiler version and options to generate the error.
>
> Just -Wall with most recent gcc versions seems to do it. At least I
> can repro it with gcc-14.2.1 and something silly like this:
I may have just missed golbolt returning a warning.
...
> > Does a '+ 0' help? "(var << 2) + 0 ? 0 : 0"
>
> Yeah, that actually works.
>
> And "+0" is nice in that it should work in any context.
Unless it falls foul of the clang test for arthmetic on NULL pointers.
(I'm sure that is only a problem if NULL isn't the all-zero bit pattern.
And pretty much no C code has ever been 'that portable'.)
Adding 0 can also help when compliers are being picky about enums.
Since none have (yet) made them more like a 32bit pointer to a one
byte structure (or the Pascal enum).
In case the relevant people are reading this, maybe only do any
non-integer warnings for named enums?
> > #define const_NULL(x) _Generic(0 ? (x) : (char *)0, char *: 1, void *: 0)
> > #define const_true(x) const_NULL((x) ? NULL : (void *)1L))
> > #define const_expr(x) const_NULL((x) ? NULL : NULL))
> > I send this morning.
> > Needs 's/char/struct kjkjkjkjui/' applied.
>
> Oh Christ. You really are taking this whole ugly to another level.
I sort of liked that version in a perverse sort of way.
It does give you a simple test for NULL (unless you've used 'struct kjkjkjkjui').
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists