lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Disable -Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare
Date
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020, Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 04:37:15PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2020, Michel Dänzer <michel@daenzer.net> wrote:
>> > On 2020-02-12 6:07 p.m., Nathan Chancellor wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 09:52:52AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> >>> On 2020-02-11 9:39 p.m., Nathan Chancellor wrote:
>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 10:41:48AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> >>>>> On 2020-02-11 7:13 a.m., Nathan Chancellor wrote:
>> >>>>>> A recent commit in clang added -Wtautological-compare to -Wall, which is
>> >>>>>> enabled for i915 so we see the following warning:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> ../drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c:1485:22: warning:
>> >>>>>> result of comparison of constant 576460752303423487 with expression of
>> >>>>>> type 'unsigned int' is always false
>> >>>>>> [-Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare]
>> >>>>>> if (unlikely(remain > N_RELOC(ULONG_MAX)))
>> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> This warning only happens on x86_64 but that check is relevant for
>> >>>>>> 32-bit x86 so we cannot remove it.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> That's suprising. AFAICT N_RELOC(ULONG_MAX) works out to the same value
>> >>>>> in both cases, and remain is a 32-bit value in both cases. How can it be
>> >>>>> larger than N_RELOC(ULONG_MAX) on 32-bit (but not on 64-bit)?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi Michel,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Can't this condition be true when UINT_MAX == ULONG_MAX?
>> >>>
>> >>> Oh, right, I think I was wrongly thinking long had 64 bits even on 32-bit.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Anyway, this suggests a possible better solution:
>> >>>
>> >>> #if UINT_MAX == ULONG_MAX
>> >>> if (unlikely(remain > N_RELOC(ULONG_MAX)))
>> >>> return -EINVAL;
>> >>> #endif
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Or if that can't be used for some reason, something like
>> >>>
>> >>> if (unlikely((unsigned long)remain > N_RELOC(ULONG_MAX)))
>> >>> return -EINVAL;
>> >>>
>> >>> should silence the warning.
>> >>
>> >> I do like this one better than the former.
>> >
>> > FWIW, one downside of this one compared to all alternatives (presumably)
>> > is that it might end up generating actual code even on 64-bit, which
>> > always ends up skipping the return.
>>
>> I like this better than the UINT_MAX == ULONG_MAX comparison because
>> that creates a dependency on the type of remain.
>>
>> Then again, a sufficiently clever compiler could see through the cast,
>> and flag the warning anyway...
>
> Would you prefer a patch that adds that cast rather than silencing the
> warning outright? It does appear to work for clang.

I'd take the cast.

If that fails for whatever reason, per-file

CFLAGS_gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.o = $(call cc-disable-warning, tautological-constant-out-of-range-compare)

over subdir-ccflags-y would be preferrable I think.

BR,
Jani.



>
> Cheers,
> Nathan

--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-13 23:05    [W:0.034 / U:7.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site