[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210723090419.529ee5ef@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:04:19 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Bjarni Jonasson <bjarni.jonasson@...rochip.com>,
Steen Hegelund <steen.hegelund@...rochip.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure in Linus' tree
Hi all,
On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 14:11:01 +0200 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 16:45:31 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 09:50:32 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > While compiling Linus' tree, a powerpc-allmodconfig build (and others)
> > > with gcc 4.9 failed like this:
> > >
> > > drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_netdev.c: In function 'ifh_encode_bitfield':
> > > include/linux/compiler_types.h:328:38: error: call to '__compiletime_assert_431' declared with attribute error: Unsupported width, must be <= 40
> > > _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
> > > ^
> > > include/linux/compiler_types.h:309:4: note: in definition of macro '__compiletime_assert'
> > > prefix ## suffix(); \
> > > ^
> > > include/linux/compiler_types.h:328:2: note: in expansion of macro '_compiletime_assert'
> > > _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
> > > ^
> > > drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_netdev.c:28:2: note: in expansion of macro 'compiletime_assert'
> > > compiletime_assert(width <= 40, "Unsupported width, must be <= 40");
> > > ^
> > >
> > > Caused by commit
> > >
> > > f3cad2611a77 ("net: sparx5: add hostmode with phylink support")
> > >
> > > I guess this is caused by the call to ifh_encode_bitfield() not being
> > > inlined.
> >
> > I am still getting these failures.
>
> Bjarni, Steen, could you address this build failure ASAP?
>
> We can't have a compile time asserts in static functions, if the code
> is optimized for size chances are the function won't get inlined. clang
> is pretty bad at propagating constants to compile time asserts, too.
> Please remove this check, or refactor it to be done in a macro, or ..
I am still getting these failures.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists