lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] byteswap: try to avoid __builtin_constant_p gcc bug
On Tue, 03 May 2016 01:10:16 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:

> On Monday 02 May 2016 16:02:18 Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 May 2016 23:48:19 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >
> > > This is another attempt to avoid a regression in wwn_to_u64() after
> > > that started using get_unaligned_be64(), which in turn ran into a
> > > bug on gcc-4.9 through 6.1.
> >
> > I'm still getting a couple screenfuls of things like
> >
> > net/tipc/name_distr.c: In function 'tipc_named_process_backlog':
> > net/tipc/name_distr.c:330: warning: format '%u' expects type 'unsigned int', but argument 3 has type 'unsigned int'
> > net/tipc/name_distr.c:330: warning: format '%u' expects type 'unsigned int', but argument 4 has type 'unsigned int'
> > net/tipc/name_distr.c:330: warning: format '%u' expects type 'unsigned int', but argument 5 has type 'unsigned int'
> > net/tipc/name_distr.c:330: warning: format '%u' expects type 'unsigned int', but argument 7 has type 'unsigned int'
>
> I've built a few thousand kernels (arm32 with gcc-6.1) with the patch applied,
> but didn't see this one. What target architecture and compiler version produced
> this? Does it go away if you add a (__u32) cast? I don't even know what the
> warning is trying to tell me.

heh, I didn't actually read it.

Hopefully we can write this off as a gcc-4.4.4 glitch. 4.8.4 is OK.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-05-03 02:01    [W:0.050 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site