>>> On 04.10.16 at 10:02, <johan...@sipsolutions.net> wrote: > On Tue, 2016-10-04 at 01:51 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > On 04.10.16 at 09:33, <johan...@sipsolutions.net> wrote: >> > From: Johannes Berg <johannes.b...@intel.com> >> > >> > __compiletime_object_size() is simply defined to >> > __builtin_object_size() >> > which gcc declares with (void *, int type) prototype. >> >> If that was the case, everyone should have seen such warnings from >> the day the original patch got introduced. > > Only if they run sparse. Clearly people don't, or we wouldn't have a > history of a ton of such problems, e.g.
No - you say "which gcc declares with (void *, int type) prototype". If that was the case, there would need to be a warning. >> And the compiler warnings >> I get when testing with all four combinations of const and volatile >> also supports this by saying "expected 'const void *' but ..." > > It's not a compiler warning though that I'm getting. > > What tool are you using to get such a warning? I'm talking about gcc and the warning surfacing when I additonally add volatile. > On gcc 6.1.1, I'm getting no warning (from the compiler) either way, > even with W=2, and the gcc documentation notes the fact that it treats > it as passing void *: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Object-Size-Checking.html Perhaps it's just the documentation which is imprecise here? Jan
