From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <848b3f21-9516-8a66-e4b3-9056ce38d6f6@roeck-us.net> From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:31:02 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Lots of new warnings with gcc-7.1.1 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Guenter Roeck , Tejun Heo , Jean Delvare , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Sathya Prakash , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "the arch/x86 maintainers" , xen-devel , linux-block , Linux Media Mailing List , IDE-ML , "linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org" , Network Development Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > We also have about a bazillion > > warning: =E2=80=98*=E2=80=99 in boolean context, suggest =E2=80=98&&= =E2=80=99 instead > > warnings in drivers/ata/libata-core.c, all due to a single macro that > uses a pattern that gcc-7.1.1 doesn't like. The warning looks a bit > debatable, but I suspect the macro could easily be changed too. > > Tejun, would you hate just moving the "multiply by 1000" part _into_ > that EZ() macro? Something like the attached (UNTESTED!) patch? Tejun applied an almost identical patch of mine a while ago, but it seems t= o have gotten lost in the meantime in some rebase: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9721397/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9721399/ I guess I should have resubmitted the second patch with the suggested improvement. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: Lots of new warnings with gcc-7.1.1 Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:31:02 +0200 Message-ID: References: <848b3f21-9516-8a66-e4b3-9056ce38d6f6@roeck-us.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from mail-it0-f65.google.com ([209.85.214.65]:34279 "EHLO mail-it0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750927AbdGLNbE (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jul 2017 09:31:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Guenter Roeck , Tejun Heo , Jean Delvare , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Sathya Prakash , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , the arch/x86 maintainers , xen-devel , linux-block , Linux Media Mailing List , IDE-ML , "linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org" , Network Development On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > We also have about a bazillion > > warning: =E2=80=98*=E2=80=99 in boolean context, suggest =E2=80=98&&= =E2=80=99 instead > > warnings in drivers/ata/libata-core.c, all due to a single macro that > uses a pattern that gcc-7.1.1 doesn't like. The warning looks a bit > debatable, but I suspect the macro could easily be changed too. > > Tejun, would you hate just moving the "multiply by 1000" part _into_ > that EZ() macro? Something like the attached (UNTESTED!) patch? Tejun applied an almost identical patch of mine a while ago, but it seems t= o have gotten lost in the meantime in some rebase: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9721397/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9721399/ I guess I should have resubmitted the second patch with the suggested improvement. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 13:31:02 +0000 Subject: Re: Lots of new warnings with gcc-7.1.1 Message-Id: List-Id: References: <848b3f21-9516-8a66-e4b3-9056ce38d6f6@roeck-us.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Guenter Roeck , Tejun Heo , Jean Delvare , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Sathya Prakash , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , the arch/x86 maintainers , xen-devel , linux-block , Linux Media Mailing List , IDE-ML , "linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org" , Network Development On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > We also have about a bazillion > > warning: ‘*’ in boolean context, suggest ‘&&’ instead > > warnings in drivers/ata/libata-core.c, all due to a single macro that > uses a pattern that gcc-7.1.1 doesn't like. The warning looks a bit > debatable, but I suspect the macro could easily be changed too. > > Tejun, would you hate just moving the "multiply by 1000" part _into_ > that EZ() macro? Something like the attached (UNTESTED!) patch? Tejun applied an almost identical patch of mine a while ago, but it seems to have gotten lost in the meantime in some rebase: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9721397/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9721399/ I guess I should have resubmitted the second patch with the suggested improvement. Arnd