linux-next: tree build failure
Hollis Blanchard
hollisb at us.ibm.com
Sat Oct 10 06:14:08 EST 2009
Rusty's version of BUILD_BUG_ON() does indeed fix the build break, and
also exposes the bug in kvmppc_account_exit_stat(). So to recap:
original: built but didn't work
Jan's: doesn't build
Rusty's: builds and works
Where do you want to go from here?
--
Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 07:58 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> Hollis Blanchard <hollisb at us.ibm.com> 02.10.09 17:48 >>>
> >On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 07:35 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> The one Rusty suggested the other day may help here. I don't like it
> >> as a drop-in replacement for BUILD_BUG_ON() though (due to it
> >> deferring the error generated to the linking stage), I'd rather view
> >> this as an improvement to MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() (which should
> >> then be used here).
> >
> >Can you be more specific?
> >
> >I have no idea what Rusty suggested where. I can't even guess what
>
> I'm attaching Rusty's response I was referring to.
>
> >MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() is supposed to do (sounds like a terrible name).
>
> Agreed - but presumably better than just deleting the bogus instances
> altogether...
>
> Jan
> email message attachment
> > -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > From: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au>
> > To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich at novell.com>
> > Cc: linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix BUILD_BUG_ON() and a couple of bogus uses
> > of it
> > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:27:00 +0930
> >
> > On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:29:25 am Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > gcc permitting variable length arrays makes the current construct
> > > used for BUILD_BUG_ON() useless, as that doesn't produce any diagnostic
> > > if the controlling expression isn't really constant. Instead, this
> > > patch makes it so that a bit field gets used here. Consequently, those
> > > uses where the condition isn't really constant now also need fixing.
> > >
> > > Note that in the gfp.h, kmemcheck.h, and virtio_config.h cases
> > > MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON() really just serves documentation purposes - even
> > > if the expression is compile time constant (__builtin_constant_p()
> > > yields true), the array is still deemed of variable length by gcc, and
> > > hence the whole expression doesn't have the intended effect.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich at novell.com>
> >
> > We used to use an undefined symbol here; diagnostics are worse but it catches
> > more stuff.
> >
> > Perhaps a hybrid is the way to go?
> >
> > #ifndef __OPTIMIZE__
> > #define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)]))
> > #else
> > /* If it's a constant, catch it at compile time, otherwise at link time. */
> > extern int __build_bug_on_failed;
> > #define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) \
> > do { \
> > ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)])); \
> > if (condition) __build_bug_on_failed = 1; \
> > } while(0)
> > #endif
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list