lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801)
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>> Warnings:
>> lib/test_hash.c:224:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef]
>> lib/test_hash.c:229:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef]
>> lib/test_hash.c:234:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64" is not defined [-Wundef]
>> lib/test_hash.c:146:2: warning: missing braces around initializer [-Wmissing-braces]
>> lib/test_hash.c:146:2: warning: (near initialization for 'hash_or[0]') [-Wmissing-braces]

> Upgrading to gcc-4.9 will fix avoid that, and a couple of workarounds have
> been discussed before, but I don't know why none of them got merged.

Geert Uytterhoeven was the first to find this problem and propose a
patch, which I acked, and thought it was going in via the m68k tree.
Helge Deller did the same a couple days later, and I told him not to
bother because Geert had taken care of it.

Here are the patches:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=146454366031110
https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=146454366131111

Perhaps there was some confusion about whose version was going in, or
via which tree. Maybe I was wrong to assume Geert was putting them in
the m68k tree.

On Sun, 29 May 2016 19:28:42 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
wrote:
> Some versions of gcc don't like tests for the value of an undefined
> preprocessor symbol, even in the #else branch of an #ifndef:
>
> lib/test_hash.c:224:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef]
> #elif HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1
> ^
> lib/test_hash.c:229:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef]
> #elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 != 1
> ^
> lib/test_hash.c:234:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64" is not defined [-Wundef]
> #elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 != 1
> ^
>
> Seen with gcc 4.9, not seen with 4.1.2.
>
> Change the logic to only check the value inside an #ifdef to fix this.
>
> Fixes: 468a9428521e7d00 ("<linux/hash.h>: Add support for architecture-specific functions")
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> ---
> lib/test_hash.c | 24 +++++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/test_hash.c b/lib/test_hash.c
> index fd7a677100ebe935..a06ac379ad429c6b 100644
> --- a/lib/test_hash.c
> +++ b/lib/test_hash.c
> @@ -219,21 +219,27 @@ test_hash_init(void)
> }
>
> /* Issue notices about skipped tests. */
> -#ifndef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32
> - pr_info("__hash_32() has no arch implementation to test.");
> -#elif HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1
> +#ifdef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32
> +#if HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1
> pr_info("__hash_32() is arch-specific; not compared to generic.");
> #endif
> -#ifndef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32
> - pr_info("hash_32() has no arch implementation to test.");
> -#elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 != 1
> +#else
> + pr_info("__hash_32() has no arch implementation to test.");
> +#endif
> +#ifdef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32
> +#if HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 != 1
> pr_info("hash_32() is arch-specific; not compared to generic.");
> #endif
> -#ifndef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64
> - pr_info("hash_64() has no arch implementation to test.");
> -#elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 != 1
> +#else
> + pr_info("hash_32() has no arch implementation to test.");
> +#endif
> +#ifdef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64
> +#if HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 != 1
> pr_info("hash_64() is arch-specific; not compared to generic.");
> #endif
> +#else
> + pr_info("hash_64() has no arch implementation to test.");
> +#endif
>
> pr_notice("%u tests passed.", tests);
>
> --
> 1.9.1
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-08-01 17:21    [W:0.257 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site