Re: [PATCH] Kbuild: Hide Clang's -Wempty-body behind W=1
Hi Masahiro,
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 01:48:46PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Nathan,
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:15 AM Nathan Chancellor
> wrote:
> >
> > There are only a few instances of this warning in an arm64 allyesconfig
> > build but none of them appear useful. I believe the intention of the
> > warning is to avoid situations like this:
> >
> > if (condition);
> > statement;
> >
> > where the user really intended
> >
> > if (condition)
> > statement;
> >
> > However, these instances have already been caught by GCC's warning about
> > misleading indentation
>
>
> Right, the example above is caught by -Wmisleading-indentation.
>
> However, the following is not.
>
>if (condition)
> ;
>
>
>
> So, -Wempty-body is a kind of different thing,
> and still useful in my opinion.
>
>
>
> > so the remaining warnings are about loops that
> > fall into one of three categories:
> >
> > 1. Execute a function unconditionally (avoiding a useless variable to
> >hold the return value):
> >
> > drivers/isdn/hisax/hfc_pci.c:131:34: warning: if statement has empty body
> > [-Wempty-body]
> > if (Read_hfc(cs, HFCPCI_INT_S1));
>
>
> I think this is a real bug,
> then -Wempty-body finally caught it.
> (but -Wmisleading-indentation cannot catch it.)
>
>
>
> It is wrong to enclose a non-effective statement with 'if ();'
> just for suppressing another warning.
>
>
>
> Read_hfc(cs, HFCPCI_INT_S1);
>
> would emit this warning.
>
>
> In file included from drivers/isdn/hisax/hfc_pci.c:20:0:
> drivers/isdn/hisax/hfc_pci.c: In function ‘reset_hfcpci’:
> drivers/isdn/hisax/hfc_pci.h:232:25: warning: statement with no effect
> [-Wunused-value]
> #define Read_hfc(a, b) (*(((u_char *)a->hw.hfcpci.pci_io) + b))
> ~^~~
> drivers/isdn/hisax/hfc_pci.c:131:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘Read_hfc’
> Read_hfc(cs, HFCPCI_INT_S1);
> ^~~~
>
>
>
> The root cause is missing 'volatile'
> while Read_hfc() is supposed to read out a HW register.
>
>
>
> #define Read_hfc(a, b) (*(((volatile u_char *)a->hw.hfcpci.pci_io) + b))
>
> will be a correct fix.
> (or just use a standard accessor like readb(), ioread8(), etc.)
>
>
>
>
> if (Read_hfc(cs, HFCPCI_INT_S1));
>
> is optimized out by the compiler, so it is not working as expected.
>
>
>
> >
> > 2. Advancing a value to be used later on in the function like a pointer
> >or a count:
> >
> > drivers/atm/eni.c:244:48: warning: for loop has empty body
> > [-Wempty-body]
> > for (order = 0; (1 << order) < *size; order++);
> > ^
>
> As you noted in the commit log,
> Clang's -Wempty-body cares the location of a semi-colon,
> while GCC's one does not.
>
>
>
>
>
>for (order = 0; (1 << order) < *size; order++)
> ;
>
> is fine, and more readable in my opinion.
>
>
>
>
> > 3. Busy waiting:
> >
> > drivers/atm/zatm.c:513:7: warning: while loop has empty body
> > [-Wempty-body]
> > zwait;
> > ^
>
>
> Again, Clang is fine with an empty body in while() loop,
> but just picky about the semi-colon location.
>
> For this particular case, how about something like this?
>
>
> #define zwait do {} while (zin(CMR) & uPD98401_BUSY)
>
>
>
>
>
> I think an even better fix is
>
> #define zwait() do {} while (zin(CMR) & uPD98401_BUSY)
>
>
>
> then, fix-up all
>
>zwait;
>
> to
>
>zwait();
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > None of these uses are problematic or need to be addressed.
>
>
> The first pattern is really problematic, and need to be addressed.
>
> I want to keep -Wempty-body enabled
> to find out potential issues.
>
> Please let me know if you see other patterns difficult to fix.
>
>
>
Thank you very much for the quick feedback, this all sounds reasonable.
I will go ahead and dig into these further and send out patches to
address them.
Much appreciated,
Nathan
>
>
> > Clang
> > suggests moving the semi-colon to the next line to silence these
> > warnings but that defeats the purpose of the compact nature of these
> > constructs so just hide the warning behind W=1 so its use can still be
> > audited but it won't polute a regular build.
> >
> > Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/42
> > Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/66
> > Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor
> > ---
> > scripts/Makefile.extrawarn | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.extrawarn b/scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
> > index cf6cd0ef6975..8709d9d6faf1 100644
> > --- a/scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
> > +++ b/scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
> > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> > # are not supported by all versions of the compiler
> > #
> > ==
> >
> > +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warning, empty-body)
> > KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call
Re: [PATCH] Kbuild: Hide Clang's -Wempty-body behind W=1
Hi Nathan,
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:15 AM Nathan Chancellor
wrote:
>
> There are only a few instances of this warning in an arm64 allyesconfig
> build but none of them appear useful. I believe the intention of the
> warning is to avoid situations like this:
>
> if (condition);
> statement;
>
> where the user really intended
>
> if (condition)
> statement;
>
> However, these instances have already been caught by GCC's warning about
> misleading indentation
Right, the example above is caught by -Wmisleading-indentation.
However, the following is not.
if (condition)
;
So, -Wempty-body is a kind of different thing,
and still useful in my opinion.
> so the remaining warnings are about loops that
> fall into one of three categories:
>
> 1. Execute a function unconditionally (avoiding a useless variable to
>hold the return value):
>
> drivers/isdn/hisax/hfc_pci.c:131:34: warning: if statement has empty body
> [-Wempty-body]
> if (Read_hfc(cs, HFCPCI_INT_S1));
I think this is a real bug,
then -Wempty-body finally caught it.
(but -Wmisleading-indentation cannot catch it.)
It is wrong to enclose a non-effective statement with 'if ();'
just for suppressing another warning.
Read_hfc(cs, HFCPCI_INT_S1);
would emit this warning.
In file included from drivers/isdn/hisax/hfc_pci.c:20:0:
drivers/isdn/hisax/hfc_pci.c: In function ‘reset_hfcpci’:
drivers/isdn/hisax/hfc_pci.h:232:25: warning: statement with no effect
[-Wunused-value]
#define Read_hfc(a, b) (*(((u_char *)a->hw.hfcpci.pci_io) + b))
~^~~
drivers/isdn/hisax/hfc_pci.c:131:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘Read_hfc’
Read_hfc(cs, HFCPCI_INT_S1);
^~~~
The root cause is missing 'volatile'
while Read_hfc() is supposed to read out a HW register.
#define Read_hfc(a, b) (*(((volatile u_char *)a->hw.hfcpci.pci_io) + b))
will be a correct fix.
(or just use a standard accessor like readb(), ioread8(), etc.)
if (Read_hfc(cs, HFCPCI_INT_S1));
is optimized out by the compiler, so it is not working as expected.
>
> 2. Advancing a value to be used later on in the function like a pointer
>or a count:
>
> drivers/atm/eni.c:244:48: warning: for loop has empty body
> [-Wempty-body]
> for (order = 0; (1 << order) < *size; order++);
> ^
As you noted in the commit log,
Clang's -Wempty-body cares the location of a semi-colon,
while GCC's one does not.
for (order = 0; (1 << order) < *size; order++)
;
is fine, and more readable in my opinion.
> 3. Busy waiting:
>
> drivers/atm/zatm.c:513:7: warning: while loop has empty body
> [-Wempty-body]
> zwait;
> ^
Again, Clang is fine with an empty body in while() loop,
but just picky about the semi-colon location.
For this particular case, how about something like this?
#define zwait do {} while (zin(CMR) & uPD98401_BUSY)
I think an even better fix is
#define zwait() do {} while (zin(CMR) & uPD98401_BUSY)
then, fix-up all
zwait;
to
zwait();
> None of these uses are problematic or need to be addressed.
The first pattern is really problematic, and need to be addressed.
I want to keep -Wempty-body enabled
to find out potential issues.
Please let me know if you see other patterns difficult to fix.
> Clang
> suggests moving the semi-colon to the next line to silence these
> warnings but that defeats the purpose of the compact nature of these
> constructs so just hide the warning behind W=1 so its use can still be
> audited but it won't polute a regular build.
>
> Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/42
> Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/66
> Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor
> ---
> scripts/Makefile.extrawarn | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.extrawarn b/scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
> index cf6cd0ef6975..8709d9d6faf1 100644
> --- a/scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
> +++ b/scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
> # are not supported by all versions of the compiler
> # ==
>
> +KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warning, empty-body)
> KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warning, packed-not-aligned)
>
> ifeq ("$(origin W)", "command line")
> @@ -32,6 +33,7 @@ warning-1 += $(call cc-option, -Wpacked-not-aligned)
> warning-1 += $(call cc-option, -Wstringop-truncation)
> warning-1 += $(call cc-disable-warning, missing-field-initializers)
> warning-1 += $(call cc-disable-warning, sign-compare)
> +warning-1 += $(call cc-option, -Wempty-body)
>
> warning-2 := -Waggregate-return
> warning-2 += -Wcast-align
> --
> 2.19.1
>
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
[PATCH] Kbuild: Hide Clang's -Wempty-body behind W=1
There are only a few instances of this warning in an arm64 allyesconfig
build but none of them appear useful. I believe the intention of the
warning is to avoid situations like this:
if (condition);
statement;
where the user really intended
if (condition)
statement;
However, these instances have already been caught by GCC's warning about
misleading indentation so the remaining warnings are about loops that
fall into one of three categories:
1. Execute a function unconditionally (avoiding a useless variable to
hold the return value):
drivers/isdn/hisax/hfc_pci.c:131:34: warning: if statement has empty body
[-Wempty-body]
if (Read_hfc(cs, HFCPCI_INT_S1));
^
2. Advancing a value to be used later on in the function like a pointer
or a count:
drivers/atm/eni.c:244:48: warning: for loop has empty body
[-Wempty-body]
for (order = 0; (1 << order) < *size; order++);
^
3. Busy waiting:
drivers/atm/zatm.c:513:7: warning: while loop has empty body
[-Wempty-body]
zwait;
^
None of these uses are problematic or need to be addressed. Clang
suggests moving the semi-colon to the next line to silence these
warnings but that defeats the purpose of the compact nature of these
constructs so just hide the warning behind W=1 so its use can still be
audited but it won't polute a regular build.
Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/42
Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/66
Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor
---
scripts/Makefile.extrawarn | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.extrawarn b/scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
index cf6cd0ef6975..8709d9d6faf1 100644
--- a/scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
+++ b/scripts/Makefile.extrawarn
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
# are not supported by all versions of the compiler
# ==
+KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warning, empty-body)
KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-disable-warning, packed-not-aligned)
ifeq ("$(origin W)", "command line")
@@ -32,6 +33,7 @@ warning-1 += $(call cc-option, -Wpacked-not-aligned)
warning-1 += $(call cc-option, -Wstringop-truncation)
warning-1 += $(call cc-disable-warning, missing-field-initializers)
warning-1 += $(call cc-disable-warning, sign-compare)
+warning-1 += $(call cc-option, -Wempty-body)
warning-2 := -Waggregate-return
warning-2 += -Wcast-align
--
2.19.1
