| Message ID | 1474467238-20939-1-git-send-email-lrichard@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:13:58AM -0400, Lance Richardson wrote: > Sparse emits a large number of warnings for the linux kernel source > tree of the form: > ./arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h:735:18: \ > warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different modifiers) > ./arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h:735:18: expected void *<noident> > ./arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h:735:18: got void const *from > > Fix by making the first parameter to __builtin_object_size() > type "const void *" instead of "void *", which is consistent with GCC > behavior (the prototype for this builtin in GCC documentation is evidently > incorrect). > > Signed-off-by: Lance Richardson <lrichard@redhat.com> > --- > lib.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/lib.c b/lib.c > index aa2af68..122dd6f 100644 > --- a/lib.c > +++ b/lib.c > @@ -917,7 +917,7 @@ void declare_builtin_functions(void) > add_pre_buffer("extern long double __builtin_nanl(const char *);\n"); > > /* And some __FORTIFY_SOURCE ones.. */ > - add_pre_buffer ("extern __SIZE_TYPE__ __builtin_object_size(void *, int);\n"); > + add_pre_buffer ("extern __SIZE_TYPE__ __builtin_object_size(const void *, int);\n"); > add_pre_buffer ("extern void * __builtin___memcpy_chk(void *, const void *, __SIZE_TYPE__, __SIZE_TYPE__);\n"); > add_pre_buffer ("extern void * __builtin___memmove_chk(void *, const void *, __SIZE_TYPE__, __SIZE_TYPE__);\n"); > add_pre_buffer ("extern void * __builtin___mempcpy_chk(void *, const void *, __SIZE_TYPE__, __SIZE_TYPE__);\n"); > -- Acked-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> Chris, can you please take this patch (or Johannes' one). When compiling the kernel, there is more than 2000 false warnings only for the uaccess.h case described here above. Luc -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> wrote: > > Acked-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> > > > Chris, can you please take this patch (or Johannes' one). > When compiling the kernel, there is more than 2000 false warnings > only for the uaccess.h case described here above. Applied and pushed to "chrisl" repository. Thanks Chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 06:52:51AM +0800, Christopher Li wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck > <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Acked-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> > > > > > > Chris, can you please take this patch (or Johannes' one). > > When compiling the kernel, there is more than 2000 false warnings > > only for the uaccess.h case described here above. > > Applied and pushed to "chrisl" repository. > > Thanks > > Chris > -- Thanks. BTW, how must we consider this "chrilsi" repository? A bit like a -next repository or more like a working one? Can we consider it as stable for git fetches & pulls? Luc -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> wrote: > > BTW, how must we consider this "chrilsi" repository? > A bit like a -next repository or more like a working one? It is a repository I use to stage change. I need to know more about the difference between "-next" repository vs a working one. > Can we consider it as stable for git fetches & pulls? So far it has been stable for git fetch and pulls. The "review-xxxx" branches are not. Chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/lib.c b/lib.c index aa2af68..122dd6f 100644 --- a/lib.c +++ b/lib.c @@ -917,7 +917,7 @@ void declare_builtin_functions(void) add_pre_buffer("extern long double __builtin_nanl(const char *);\n"); /* And some __FORTIFY_SOURCE ones.. */ - add_pre_buffer ("extern __SIZE_TYPE__ __builtin_object_size(void *, int);\n"); + add_pre_buffer ("extern __SIZE_TYPE__ __builtin_object_size(const void *, int);\n"); add_pre_buffer ("extern void * __builtin___memcpy_chk(void *, const void *, __SIZE_TYPE__, __SIZE_TYPE__);\n"); add_pre_buffer ("extern void * __builtin___memmove_chk(void *, const void *, __SIZE_TYPE__, __SIZE_TYPE__);\n"); add_pre_buffer ("extern void * __builtin___mempcpy_chk(void *, const void *, __SIZE_TYPE__, __SIZE_TYPE__);\n");
Sparse emits a large number of warnings for the linux kernel source tree of the form: ./arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h:735:18: \ warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different modifiers) ./arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h:735:18: expected void *<noident> ./arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h:735:18: got void const *from Fix by making the first parameter to __builtin_object_size() type "const void *" instead of "void *", which is consistent with GCC behavior (the prototype for this builtin in GCC documentation is evidently incorrect). Signed-off-by: Lance Richardson <lrichard@redhat.com> --- lib.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)