lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] perf tools: Fix arm64 build error with gcc-11
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 02:18:26PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> On 09/02/2021 12:17, Leo Yan wrote:
> > Hi Jianlin,
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 07:33:57PM +0800, Jianlin Lv wrote:
> > > gcc version: 11.0.0 20210208 (experimental) (GCC)
> > >
> > > Following build error on arm64:
> > >
> > > .......
> > > In function ‘printf’,
> > > inlined from ‘regs_dump__printf’ at util/session.c:1141:3,
> > > inlined from ‘regs__printf’ at util/session.c:1169:2:
> > > /usr/include/aarch64-linux-gnu/bits/stdio2.h:107:10: \
> > > error: ‘%-5s’ directive argument is null [-Werror=format-overflow=]
> > >
> > > 107 | return __printf_chk (__USE_FORTIFY_LEVEL - 1, __fmt, \
> > > __va_arg_pack ());
> > >
> > > ......
> > > In function ‘fprintf’,
> > > inlined from ‘perf_sample__fprintf_regs.isra’ at \
> > > builtin-script.c:622:14:
> > > /usr/include/aarch64-linux-gnu/bits/stdio2.h:100:10: \
> > > error: ‘%5s’ directive argument is null [-Werror=format-overflow=]
> > > 100 | return __fprintf_chk (__stream, __USE_FORTIFY_LEVEL - 1, __fmt,
> > > 101 | __va_arg_pack ());
> > >
> > > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> > > .......
> > >
> > > This patch fixes Wformat-overflow warnings by replacing the return
> > > value NULL of perf_reg_name with "unknown".
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jianlin Lv <Jianlin.Lv@arm.com>
> > > ---
> > > tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> > > index baaa5e64a3fb..901419f907c0 100644
> > > --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> > > +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/include/perf_regs.h
> > > @@ -85,10 +85,10 @@ static inline const char *perf_reg_name(int id)
> > > case PERF_REG_ARM64_PC:
> > > return "pc";
> > > default:
> > > - return NULL;
> > > + return "unknown";
> > > }
> > > - return NULL;
> > > + return "unknown";
> >
> > This issue is a common issue crossing all archs. So it's better to
> > change the code in the places where calls perf_reg_name(), e.g. in
> > util/session.c:
> >
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/session.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/session.c
> > @@ -1135,12 +1135,14 @@ static void branch_stack__printf(struct perf_sample *sample, bool callstack)
> > static void regs_dump__printf(u64 mask, u64 *regs)
> > {
> > unsigned rid, i = 0;
> > + char *reg_name;
> > for_each_set_bit(rid, (unsigned long *) &mask, sizeof(mask) * 8) {
> > u64 val = regs[i++];
> > + reg_name = perf_reg_name(rid);
> > printf(".... %-5s 0x%016" PRIx64 "\n",
> > - perf_reg_name(rid), val);
> > + reg_name ?: "Unknown", val);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > And another potential issue is the format specifier "%-5s", it prints
> > out maximum to 5 chars,
>
> Doesn't the width field specify the min, not max, number of characters?

Thanks for correction, John.

I wrongly understood it and sorry for confusion. Wiki says [1]:

"The Width field specifies a minimum number of characters to output,
and is typically used to pad fixed-width fields in tabulated output,
where the fields would otherwise be smaller, although it does not
cause truncation of oversized fields."

Thanks,
Leo

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printf_format_string#Width_field

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-09 15:46    [W:1.407 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site