All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>
To: "Hollis Blanchard" <hollisb@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	<linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	"Rusty Russell" <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
	<kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-next@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: tree build failure
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 07:58:25 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AC9B5310200007800017EA1@vpn.id2.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1254498517.3839.17.camel@slab.beaverton.ibm.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 745 bytes --]

>>> Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@us.ibm.com> 02.10.09 17:48 >>>
>On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 07:35 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> The one Rusty suggested the other day may help here. I don't like it
>> as a drop-in replacement for BUILD_BUG_ON() though (due to it
>> deferring the error generated to the linking stage), I'd rather view
>> this as an improvement to MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() (which should
>> then be used here).
>
>Can you be more specific?
>
>I have no idea what Rusty suggested where. I can't even guess what

I'm attaching Rusty's response I was referring to.

>MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() is supposed to do (sounds like a terrible name).

Agreed - but presumably better than just deleting the bogus instances
altogether...

Jan

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2578 bytes --]

From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix BUILD_BUG_ON() and a couple of bogus uses of it
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:27:00 +0930
Message-ID: <200909231027.01006.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:29:25 am Jan Beulich wrote:
> gcc permitting variable length arrays makes the current construct
> used for BUILD_BUG_ON() useless, as that doesn't produce any diagnostic
> if the controlling expression isn't really constant. Instead, this
> patch makes it so that a bit field gets used here. Consequently, those
> uses where the condition isn't really constant now also need fixing.
> 
> Note that in the gfp.h, kmemcheck.h, and virtio_config.h cases
> MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() really just serves documentation purposes - even
> if the expression is compile time constant (__builtin_constant_p()
> yields true), the array is still deemed of variable length by gcc, and
> hence the whole expression doesn't have the intended effect.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>

We used to use an undefined symbol here; diagnostics are worse but it catches
more stuff.

Perhaps a hybrid is the way to go?

#ifndef __OPTIMIZE__
#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)]))
#else
/* If it's a constant, catch it at compile time, otherwise at link time. */
extern int __build_bug_on_failed;
#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) \
	do { 								\
		((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)]));		\
		if (condition) __build_bug_on_failed = 1;		\
	} while(0)
#endif

Thanks,
Rusty.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>
To: Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@us.ibm.com>
Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.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
Subject: Re: linux-next: tree build failure
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 07:58:25 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AC9B5310200007800017EA1@vpn.id2.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1254498517.3839.17.camel@slab.beaverton.ibm.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 745 bytes --]

>>> Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@us.ibm.com> 02.10.09 17:48 >>>
>On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 07:35 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> The one Rusty suggested the other day may help here. I don't like it
>> as a drop-in replacement for BUILD_BUG_ON() though (due to it
>> deferring the error generated to the linking stage), I'd rather view
>> this as an improvement to MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() (which should
>> then be used here).
>
>Can you be more specific?
>
>I have no idea what Rusty suggested where. I can't even guess what

I'm attaching Rusty's response I was referring to.

>MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() is supposed to do (sounds like a terrible name).

Agreed - but presumably better than just deleting the bogus instances
altogether...

Jan

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2578 bytes --]

From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix BUILD_BUG_ON() and a couple of bogus uses of it
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:27:00 +0930
Message-ID: <200909231027.01006.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:29:25 am Jan Beulich wrote:
> gcc permitting variable length arrays makes the current construct
> used for BUILD_BUG_ON() useless, as that doesn't produce any diagnostic
> if the controlling expression isn't really constant. Instead, this
> patch makes it so that a bit field gets used here. Consequently, those
> uses where the condition isn't really constant now also need fixing.
> 
> Note that in the gfp.h, kmemcheck.h, and virtio_config.h cases
> MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() really just serves documentation purposes - even
> if the expression is compile time constant (__builtin_constant_p()
> yields true), the array is still deemed of variable length by gcc, and
> hence the whole expression doesn't have the intended effect.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>

We used to use an undefined symbol here; diagnostics are worse but it catches
more stuff.

Perhaps a hybrid is the way to go?

#ifndef __OPTIMIZE__
#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)]))
#else
/* If it's a constant, catch it at compile time, otherwise at link time. */
extern int __build_bug_on_failed;
#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) \
	do { 								\
		((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)]));		\
		if (condition) __build_bug_on_failed = 1;		\
	} while(0)
#endif

Thanks,
Rusty.

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 150 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>
To: "Hollis Blanchard" <hollisb@us.ibm.com>
Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.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
Subject: Re: linux-next: tree build failure
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 07:58:25 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AC9B5310200007800017EA1@vpn.id2.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1254498517.3839.17.camel@slab.beaverton.ibm.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 745 bytes --]

>>> Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@us.ibm.com> 02.10.09 17:48 >>>
>On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 07:35 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> The one Rusty suggested the other day may help here. I don't like it
>> as a drop-in replacement for BUILD_BUG_ON() though (due to it
>> deferring the error generated to the linking stage), I'd rather view
>> this as an improvement to MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() (which should
>> then be used here).
>
>Can you be more specific?
>
>I have no idea what Rusty suggested where. I can't even guess what

I'm attaching Rusty's response I was referring to.

>MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() is supposed to do (sounds like a terrible name).

Agreed - but presumably better than just deleting the bogus instances
altogether...

Jan

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2578 bytes --]

From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix BUILD_BUG_ON() and a couple of bogus uses of it
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:27:00 +0930
Message-ID: <200909231027.01006.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:29:25 am Jan Beulich wrote:
> gcc permitting variable length arrays makes the current construct
> used for BUILD_BUG_ON() useless, as that doesn't produce any diagnostic
> if the controlling expression isn't really constant. Instead, this
> patch makes it so that a bit field gets used here. Consequently, those
> uses where the condition isn't really constant now also need fixing.
> 
> Note that in the gfp.h, kmemcheck.h, and virtio_config.h cases
> MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() really just serves documentation purposes - even
> if the expression is compile time constant (__builtin_constant_p()
> yields true), the array is still deemed of variable length by gcc, and
> hence the whole expression doesn't have the intended effect.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>

We used to use an undefined symbol here; diagnostics are worse but it catches
more stuff.

Perhaps a hybrid is the way to go?

#ifndef __OPTIMIZE__
#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)]))
#else
/* If it's a constant, catch it at compile time, otherwise at link time. */
extern int __build_bug_on_failed;
#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) \
	do { 								\
		((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)]));		\
		if (condition) __build_bug_on_failed = 1;		\
	} while(0)
#endif

Thanks,
Rusty.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>
To: Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@us.ibm.com>
Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
	kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-next@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: tree build failure
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 06:58:25 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AC9B5310200007800017EA1@vpn.id2.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1254498517.3839.17.camel@slab.beaverton.ibm.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 745 bytes --]

>>> Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@us.ibm.com> 02.10.09 17:48 >>>
>On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 07:35 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> The one Rusty suggested the other day may help here. I don't like it
>> as a drop-in replacement for BUILD_BUG_ON() though (due to it
>> deferring the error generated to the linking stage), I'd rather view
>> this as an improvement to MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() (which should
>> then be used here).
>
>Can you be more specific?
>
>I have no idea what Rusty suggested where. I can't even guess what

I'm attaching Rusty's response I was referring to.

>MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() is supposed to do (sounds like a terrible name).

Agreed - but presumably better than just deleting the bogus instances
altogether...

Jan

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2578 bytes --]

From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix BUILD_BUG_ON() and a couple of bogus uses of it
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:27:00 +0930
Message-ID: <200909231027.01006.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:29:25 am Jan Beulich wrote:
> gcc permitting variable length arrays makes the current construct
> used for BUILD_BUG_ON() useless, as that doesn't produce any diagnostic
> if the controlling expression isn't really constant. Instead, this
> patch makes it so that a bit field gets used here. Consequently, those
> uses where the condition isn't really constant now also need fixing.
> 
> Note that in the gfp.h, kmemcheck.h, and virtio_config.h cases
> MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() really just serves documentation purposes - even
> if the expression is compile time constant (__builtin_constant_p()
> yields true), the array is still deemed of variable length by gcc, and
> hence the whole expression doesn't have the intended effect.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>

We used to use an undefined symbol here; diagnostics are worse but it catches
more stuff.

Perhaps a hybrid is the way to go?

#ifndef __OPTIMIZE__
#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)]))
#else
/* If it's a constant, catch it at compile time, otherwise at link time. */
extern int __build_bug_on_failed;
#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) \
	do { 								\
		((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)]));		\
		if (condition) __build_bug_on_failed = 1;		\
	} while(0)
#endif

Thanks,
Rusty.

  reply	other threads:[~2009-10-05  6:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 135+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-09-29  9:28 linux-next: tree build failure Jan Beulich
2009-09-29  9:28 ` Jan Beulich
2009-09-29  9:28 ` Jan Beulich
2009-09-29  9:28 ` Jan Beulich
2009-09-29  9:51 ` roel kluin
2009-09-29  9:51   ` roel kluin
2009-09-29  9:51   ` roel kluin
2009-09-29  9:51   ` roel kluin
2009-09-30  6:29   ` Jan Beulich
2009-09-30  6:29     ` Jan Beulich
2009-09-30  6:29     ` Jan Beulich
2009-09-30  6:29     ` Jan Beulich
2009-09-29 23:39 ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-09-29 23:39   ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-09-29 23:39   ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-09-29 23:39   ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-09-30  6:35   ` Jan Beulich
2009-09-30  6:35     ` Jan Beulich
2009-09-30  6:35     ` Jan Beulich
2009-09-30  6:35     ` Jan Beulich
2009-10-02 15:48     ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-02 15:48       ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-02 15:48       ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-02 15:48       ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-05  6:58       ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2009-10-05  6:58         ` Jan Beulich
2009-10-05  6:58         ` Jan Beulich
2009-10-05  6:58         ` Jan Beulich
2009-10-09 19:14         ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-09 19:14           ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-09 19:14           ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-14 22:57           ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-14 22:57             ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-14 22:57             ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-15  7:27             ` Jan Beulich
2009-10-15  7:27               ` Jan Beulich
2009-10-15  7:27               ` Jan Beulich
2009-10-15  7:27               ` Jan Beulich
2009-10-19 18:19               ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-19 18:19                 ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-19 18:19                 ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-20  1:12                 ` Rusty Russell
2009-10-20  1:24                   ` Rusty Russell
2009-10-20  1:12                   ` Rusty Russell
2009-10-20  1:29                   ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-20  1:29                     ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-20  1:29                     ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-20  1:29                     ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-20  3:45                     ` [PATCH] BUILD_BUG_ON: make it handle more cases Rusty Russell
2009-10-20  3:57                       ` Rusty Russell
2009-10-20  3:45                       ` Rusty Russell
2009-10-20  3:45                       ` Rusty Russell
2009-10-20 13:58                       ` Américo Wang
2009-10-20 13:58                         ` Américo Wang
2009-10-20 13:58                         ` Américo Wang
2009-10-20 14:43                         ` Alan Jenkins
2009-10-20 14:43                           ` Alan Jenkins
2009-10-20 14:43                           ` Alan Jenkins
2009-10-23  1:50                           ` Américo Wang
2009-10-23  1:50                             ` Américo Wang
2009-10-23  1:50                             ` Américo Wang
2009-10-23  1:50                             ` Américo Wang
2009-10-22 21:04                       ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-22 21:04                         ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-22 21:04                         ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-22 21:04                         ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-29 21:30                       ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-29 21:30                         ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-10-29 21:30                         ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-11-05  0:20                       ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-11-05  0:20                         ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-11-05  0:20                         ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-11-05  0:20                         ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-11-05  6:28                         ` Rusty Russell
2009-11-05  6:40                           ` Rusty Russell
2009-11-05  6:28                           ` Rusty Russell
2009-11-05  6:37                           ` Rusty Russell
2009-11-05  6:49                             ` Rusty Russell
2009-11-05  6:37                             ` Rusty Russell
2009-11-05  6:37                             ` Rusty Russell
2009-11-05  6:38                           ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-11-05  6:38                             ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-11-05  6:38                             ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-11-06  6:30                             ` Rusty Russell
2009-11-06  6:42                               ` Rusty Russell
2009-11-06  6:30                               ` Rusty Russell
2009-11-06  6:30                               ` Rusty Russell
2009-11-05  6:01                       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-11-05  6:01                         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-11-05  6:01                         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-12-16  7:21 linux-next: tree build failure Stephen Rothwell
2009-12-16  9:02 ` Felipe Balbi
2009-12-16 10:10 ` Liam Girdwood
2009-12-16 10:10   ` Liam Girdwood
2009-10-01  3:19 Stephen Rothwell
2009-10-01  7:58 ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-01 10:41   ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-09-24  5:21 Stephen Rothwell
2009-09-24  5:21 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-09-24  5:21 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-09-29  0:00 ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-09-29  0:00   ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-09-29  0:00   ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-09-29  0:00   ` Hollis Blanchard
2009-08-17  8:39 Stephen Rothwell
2009-08-03  0:35 Stephen Rothwell
2009-08-03  1:01 ` NeilBrown
2009-08-03  1:30   ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-07-27  7:53 Stephen Rothwell
2009-07-27  9:21 ` Karsten Keil
2009-07-27 15:06   ` David Miller
2009-07-28  4:22     ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-04-07  3:41 Stephen Rothwell
2009-04-07 10:00 ` Mark Brown
2009-04-08  1:48 ` Takashi Iwai
2009-03-23  9:38 Stephen Rothwell
2009-03-23 22:27 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2009-03-23 23:25   ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-03-05  7:41 Stephen Rothwell
2009-03-06  5:01 ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-16  5:37 Stephen Rothwell
2009-01-16  7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-16  9:03   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-16 10:39     ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-01-16 10:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-16 11:53   ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-01-16 12:32     ` Ingo Molnar
2008-11-28 10:04 Stephen Rothwell
2008-11-28 10:25 ` Takashi Iwai
2008-11-28 10:43   ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-11-28 17:23     ` Takashi Iwai
2008-10-21  8:30 Stephen Rothwell
2008-08-25 10:33 Stephen Rothwell
2008-08-25 16:36 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-06-30 14:35 Stephen Rothwell

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4AC9B5310200007800017EA1@vpn.id2.novell.com \
    --to=jbeulich@novell.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hollisb@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.