Hi!
On 1/20/23 20:29, Michael Karcher wrote:
Hello Adrian,
Could you post a kernel patch for that? I would be happy to test it on my
SH-7785CLR board. Also, I'm going to file a bug report against GCC.
I filed the bug already. It's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108483.
The
Hello Adrian,
Could you post a kernel patch for that? I would be happy to test it on my
SH-7785CLR board. Also, I'm going to file a bug report against GCC.
I filed the bug already. It's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108483.
The diff is attached. It's published as CC0 in case
Hello!
Can someone please file a GCC PR? With reduced testcase preferably.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108483
There you are.
Kind regars,
Michael Karcher
From: Segher Boessenkool
> Sent: 20 January 2023 10:54
...
> > > I suggest to file a bug against gcc complaining about a "spurious
> > > warning", and using "-Werror -Wno-error-sizeof-pointer-div" until gcc is
> > > adapted to not emit the warning about the pointer division if the result
> > > is
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 09:31:21PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 1/19/23 16:11, Michael.Karcher wrote:
> > I don't see a clear bug at this point. We are talking about the C expression
> >
> > __same_type((void*)0, (void*)0)? 0 : sizeof((void*)0)/sizeof(*((void*0))
(__same_type is a kernel
Hi Michael!
On 1/19/23 23:11, Michael.Karcher wrote:
I suggest to file a bug against gcc complaining about a "spurious warning",
and using "-Werror -Wno-error-sizeof-pointer-div" until gcc is adapted to
not emit the warning about the pointer division if the result is not used.
Could you post
On 1/19/23 16:11, Michael.Karcher wrote:
> Isn't this supposed to be caught by this check:
a, __same_type(a, NULL)
?
>>>
>>> Yeah, but gcc thinks it is smarter than us...
>>> Probably it drops the test, assuming UB cannot happen.
>> Hmm, sounds like a GGC bug to me
Isn't this supposed to be caught by this check:
a, __same_type(a, NULL)
?
Yeah, but gcc thinks it is smarter than us...
Probably it drops the test, assuming UB cannot happen.
Hmm, sounds like a GGC bug to me then. Not sure how to fix this then.
I don't see a clear bug at this
Hi!
On 1/17/23 21:05, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Isn't this supposed to be caught by this check:
a, __same_type(a, NULL)
?
Yeah, but gcc thinks it is smarter than us...
Probably it drops the test, assuming UB cannot happen.
Hmm, sounds like a GGC bug to me then. Not sure how to
Hi Adrian,
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 6:06 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
> On 1/17/23 18:01, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > The issue is that some of the parameters are not arrays, but
> > NULL. E.g.:
> >
> > arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh2/setup-sh7619.c:static
> > DECLARE_INTC_DESC(intc_desc,
Hi!
On 1/17/23 18:01, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
The issue is that some of the parameters are not arrays, but
NULL. E.g.:
arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh2/setup-sh7619.c:static
DECLARE_INTC_DESC(intc_desc, "sh7619", vectors, NULL,
arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh2/setup-sh7619.c- NULL,
Hi Adrian,
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 5:42 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
> On 1/6/23 16:17, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> I'm not seeing this one, but I am getting this one instead:
> >>
> >> In file included from ./arch/sh/include/asm/hw_irq.h:6,
> >>from
Hi Geert!
On 1/6/23 16:17, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
I'm not seeing this one, but I am getting this one instead:
In file included from ./arch/sh/include/asm/hw_irq.h:6,
from ./include/linux/irq.h:596,
from ./include/asm-generic/hardirq.h:17,
13 matches
Mail list logo
