From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753428AbZI2Xjg (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:39:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753219AbZI2Xjf (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:39:35 -0400 Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.159]:47216 "EHLO e38.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752830AbZI2Xje (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:39:34 -0400 Subject: Re: linux-next: tree build failure From: Hollis Blanchard To: Jan Beulich Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <4AC1E15502000078000516B5@vpn.id2.novell.com> References: <4AC1E15502000078000516B5@vpn.id2.novell.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: IBM Linux Technology Center Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:39:32 -0700 Message-Id: <1254267572.15622.1621.camel@slab.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 (2.26.3-1.fc11) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 10:28 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> Hollis Blanchard 09/29/09 2:00 AM >>> > >First, I think there is a real bug here, and the code should read like > >this (to match the comment): > > /* type has to be known at build time for optimization */ > >- BUILD_BUG_ON(__builtin_constant_p(type)); > >+ BUILD_BUG_ON(!__builtin_constant_p(type)); > > > >However, I get the same build error *both* ways, i.e. > >__builtin_constant_p(type) evaluates to both 0 and 1? Either that, or > >the new BUILD_BUG_ON() macro isn't working... > > No, at this point of the compilation process it's neither zero nor one, > it's simply considered non-constant by the compiler at that stage > (this builtin is used for optimization, not during parsing, and the > error gets generated when the body of the function gets parsed, > not when code gets generated from it). I think I see what you're saying. Do you have a fix to suggest? -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hollis Blanchard Subject: Re: linux-next: tree build failure Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:39:32 -0700 Message-ID: <1254267572.15622.1621.camel@slab.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <4AC1E15502000078000516B5@vpn.id2.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4AC1E15502000078000516B5-Qfbpwmsw6RoS3W1tAdPHOtBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> Sender: kvm-ppc-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: sfr-3FnU+UHB4dNDw9hX6IcOSA@public.gmane.org, akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, linuxppc-dev-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, kvm-ppc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-next-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 10:28 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> Hollis Blanchard 09/29/09 2:00 AM >>> > >First, I think there is a real bug here, and the code should read like > >this (to match the comment): > > /* type has to be known at build time for optimization */ > >- BUILD_BUG_ON(__builtin_constant_p(type)); > >+ BUILD_BUG_ON(!__builtin_constant_p(type)); > > > >However, I get the same build error *both* ways, i.e. > >__builtin_constant_p(type) evaluates to both 0 and 1? Either that, or > >the new BUILD_BUG_ON() macro isn't working... > > No, at this point of the compilation process it's neither zero nor one, > it's simply considered non-constant by the compiler at that stage > (this builtin is used for optimization, not during parsing, and the > error gets generated when the body of the function gets parsed, > not when code gets generated from it). I think I see what you're saying. Do you have a fix to suggest? -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com (e33.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.151]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e33.co.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7DD6B7BDD for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:39:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n8TNbK4k002711 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:37:20 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n8TNdaIJ196840 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:39:36 -0600 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n8TNdZgu018258 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:39:35 -0600 Subject: Re: linux-next: tree build failure From: Hollis Blanchard To: Jan Beulich In-Reply-To: <4AC1E15502000078000516B5@vpn.id2.novell.com> References: <4AC1E15502000078000516B5@vpn.id2.novell.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:39:32 -0700 Message-Id: <1254267572.15622.1621.camel@slab.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 10:28 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> Hollis Blanchard 09/29/09 2:00 AM >>> > >First, I think there is a real bug here, and the code should read like > >this (to match the comment): > > /* type has to be known at build time for optimization */ > >- BUILD_BUG_ON(__builtin_constant_p(type)); > >+ BUILD_BUG_ON(!__builtin_constant_p(type)); > > > >However, I get the same build error *both* ways, i.e. > >__builtin_constant_p(type) evaluates to both 0 and 1? Either that, or > >the new BUILD_BUG_ON() macro isn't working... > > No, at this point of the compilation process it's neither zero nor one, > it's simply considered non-constant by the compiler at that stage > (this builtin is used for optimization, not during parsing, and the > error gets generated when the body of the function gets parsed, > not when code gets generated from it). I think I see what you're saying. Do you have a fix to suggest? -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hollis Blanchard Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:39:32 +0000 Subject: Re: linux-next: tree build failure Message-Id: <1254267572.15622.1621.camel@slab.beaverton.ibm.com> List-Id: References: <4AC1E15502000078000516B5@vpn.id2.novell.com> In-Reply-To: <4AC1E15502000078000516B5@vpn.id2.novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Jan Beulich Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 10:28 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> Hollis Blanchard 09/29/09 2:00 AM >>> > >First, I think there is a real bug here, and the code should read like > >this (to match the comment): > > /* type has to be known at build time for optimization */ > >- BUILD_BUG_ON(__builtin_constant_p(type)); > >+ BUILD_BUG_ON(!__builtin_constant_p(type)); > > > >However, I get the same build error *both* ways, i.e. > >__builtin_constant_p(type) evaluates to both 0 and 1? Either that, or > >the new BUILD_BUG_ON() macro isn't working... > > No, at this point of the compilation process it's neither zero nor one, > it's simply considered non-constant by the compiler at that stage > (this builtin is used for optimization, not during parsing, and the > error gets generated when the body of the function gets parsed, > not when code gets generated from it). I think I see what you're saying. Do you have a fix to suggest? -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center