With non-empty CONFIG_DOM0_MEM clang5 produces
dom0_build.c:344:24: error: use of logical '&&' with constant operand
[-Werror,-Wconstant-logical-operand]
if ( !dom0_mem_set && CONFIG_DOM0_MEM[0] )
^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
dom0_build.c:344:24: note: use '&' for a bitwise operation
if ( !dom0_mem_set && CONFIG_DOM0_MEM[0] )
^~
&
dom0_build.c:344:24: note: remove constant to silence this warning
if ( !dom0_mem_set && CONFIG_DOM0_MEM[0] )
~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 error generated.
Obviously neither of the two suggestions are an option here. Oddly
enough swapping the operands of the && helps, while e.g. casting or
parenthesizing doesn't. Another workable variant looks to be the use of
!! on the constant.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
---
I'm open to going the !! or yet some different route. No matter which
one we choose, I'm afraid it is going to remain guesswork what newer
(and future) versions of clang will choke on.
--- a/xen/arch/x86/dom0_build.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/dom0_build.c
@@ -341,7 +341,7 @@ unsigned long __init dom0_compute_nr_pag
unsigned long avail = 0, nr_pages, min_pages, max_pages;
bool need_paging;
- if ( !dom0_mem_set && CONFIG_DOM0_MEM[0] )
+ if ( CONFIG_DOM0_MEM[0] && !dom0_mem_set )
parse_dom0_mem(CONFIG_DOM0_MEM);
for_each_node_mask ( node, dom0_nodes )
x86/dom0-build: fix build with clang5
With non-empty CONFIG_DOM0_MEM clang5 produces
dom0_build.c:344:24: error: use of logical '&&' with constant operand
[-Werror,-Wconstant-logical-operand]
if ( !dom0_mem_set && CONFIG_DOM0_MEM[0] )
^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
dom0_build.c:344:24: note: use '&' for a bitwise operation
if ( !dom0_mem_set && CONFIG_DOM0_MEM[0] )
^~
&
dom0_build.c:344:24: note: remove constant to silence this warning
if ( !dom0_mem_set && CONFIG_DOM0_MEM[0] )
~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 error generated.
Obviously neither of the two suggestions are an option here. Oddly
enough swapping the operands of the && helps, while e.g. casting or
parenthesizing doesn't. Another workable variant looks to be the use of
!! on the constant.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
---
I'm open to going the !! or yet some different route. No matter which
one we choose, I'm afraid it is going to remain guesswork what newer
(and future) versions of clang will choke on.
--- a/xen/arch/x86/dom0_build.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/dom0_build.c
@@ -341,7 +341,7 @@ unsigned long __init dom0_compute_nr_pag
unsigned long avail = 0, nr_pages, min_pages, max_pages;
bool need_paging;
- if ( !dom0_mem_set && CONFIG_DOM0_MEM[0] )
+ if ( CONFIG_DOM0_MEM[0] && !dom0_mem_set )
parse_dom0_mem(CONFIG_DOM0_MEM);
for_each_node_mask ( node, dom0_nodes )
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
