Hi On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 6:42 PM Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > On 22/3/23 14:27, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 08:11:37AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > >> On 21/03/2023 17.16, Cédric Le Goater wrote: > >>> From: Cédric Le Goater > >>> > >>> GCC13 reports an error : > >>> > >>> ../util/async.c: In function ‘aio_bh_poll’: > >>> include/qemu/queue.h:303:22: error: storing the address of local > variable ‘slice’ in ‘*ctx.bh_slice_list.sqh_last’ > [-Werror=dangling-pointer=] > >>> 303 | (head)->sqh_last = &(elm)->field.sqe_next; > \ > >>> | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>> ../util/async.c:169:5: note: in expansion of macro > ‘QSIMPLEQ_INSERT_TAIL’ > >>> 169 | QSIMPLEQ_INSERT_TAIL(&ctx->bh_slice_list, &slice, next); > >>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>> ../util/async.c:161:17: note: ‘slice’ declared here > >>> 161 | BHListSlice slice; > >>> | ^~~~~ > >>> ../util/async.c:161:17: note: ‘ctx’ declared here > >>> > >>> But the local variable 'slice' is removed from the global context list > >>> in following loop of the same routine. Add a pragma to silent GCC. > >>> > >>> Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi > >>> Cc: Paolo Bonzini > >>> Cc: Daniel P. Berrangé > >>> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater > >>> --- > >>> util/async.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > >>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/util/async.c b/util/async.c > >>> index 21016a1ac7..de9b431236 100644 > >>> --- a/util/async.c > >>> +++ b/util/async.c > >>> @@ -164,7 +164,20 @@ int aio_bh_poll(AioContext *ctx) > >>> /* Synchronizes with QSLIST_INSERT_HEAD_ATOMIC in > aio_bh_enqueue(). */ > >>> QSLIST_MOVE_ATOMIC(&slice.bh_list, &ctx->bh_list); > >>> + > >>> + /* > >>> + * GCC13 [-Werror=dangling-pointer=] complains that the local > variable > >>> + * 'slice' is being stored in the global 'ctx->bh_slice_list' but > the > >>> + * list is emptied before this function returns. > >>> + */ > >>> +#if !defined(__clang__) > >>> +#pragma GCC diagnostic push > >>> +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wdangling-pointer=" > >> > >> That warning parameter looks like a new one in GCC 13 ? > >> ... so you have to check whether it's available before disabling > >> it, otherwise this will fail with older versions of GCC. I just > >> gave it a try with my GCC 8.5 and got this: > >> > >> ../../devel/qemu/util/async.c: In function ‘aio_bh_poll’: > >> ../../devel/qemu/util/async.c:175:32: error: unknown option after > ‘#pragma GCC diagnostic’ kind [-Werror=pragmas] > >> #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wdangling-pointer=" > >> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > >> > >> Thomas > >> > >> What about reworking the code like this: > >> > >> diff --git a/util/async.c b/util/async.c > >> index 21016a1ac7..b236bdfbd8 100644 > >> --- a/util/async.c > >> +++ b/util/async.c > >> @@ -156,15 +156,14 @@ void aio_bh_call(QEMUBH *bh) > >> } > >> /* Multiple occurrences of aio_bh_poll cannot be called concurrently. > */ > >> -int aio_bh_poll(AioContext *ctx) > >> +static int aio_bh_poll_slice(AioContext *ctx, BHListSlice *slice) > >> { > >> - BHListSlice slice; > >> BHListSlice *s; > >> int ret = 0; > >> /* Synchronizes with QSLIST_INSERT_HEAD_ATOMIC in > aio_bh_enqueue(). */ > >> - QSLIST_MOVE_ATOMIC(&slice.bh_list, &ctx->bh_list); > >> - QSIMPLEQ_INSERT_TAIL(&ctx->bh_slice_list, &slice, next); > >> + QSLIST_MOVE_ATOMIC(&slice->bh_list, &ctx->bh_list); > >> + QSIMPLEQ_INSERT_TAIL(&ctx->bh_slice_list, slice, next); > >> while ((s = QSIMPLEQ_FIRST(&ctx->bh_slice_list))) { > >> QEMUBH *bh; > >> @@ -191,6 +190,13 @@ int aio_bh_poll(AioContext *ctx) > >> return ret; > >> } > >> +int aio_bh_poll(AioContext *ctx) > >> +{ > >> + BHListSlice slice; > >> + > >> + return aio_bh_poll_slice(ctx, &slice); > >> +} > >> + > >> void qemu_bh_schedule_idle(QEMUBH *bh) > >> { > >> aio_bh_enqueue(bh, BH_SCHEDULED | BH_IDLE); > >> > >> Would that work with GCC 13 and be acceptable? > > > > Fine by me. Please add a comment into aio_bh_poll() explaining that this > > wrapper function exists to silence the gcc dangling-pointer warning. > > Otherwise someone may be tempted to remove the function. > > IMO by using #pragmas it is clearer this is a kludge. Also we can > revert this commit adding the pragmas/comment once the compiler > are fixed. > > up fwiw,bBoth solutions look fine to me, as long as there is a comment explaining it. -- Marc-André Lureau