Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 01 Aug 2023 21:54:06 +0200 | From | "Arnd Bergmann" <> | Subject | Re: next: arm64: gcc-8-defconfig: ufshcd.c:10629:2: /builds/linux/include/linux/compiler_types.h:397:38: error: call to '__compiletime_assert_553' declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG_ON failed: |
| |
On Tue, Aug 1, 2023, at 19:51, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 8/1/23 07:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023, at 16:23, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > If I change the return type of ufshcd_check_header_layout() from void > into unsigned int and insert the following at the start of that function: > > return ((u8 *)&(struct request_desc_header){ .enable_crypto = 1})[2] != 0x80; > > then the compiler shows the following in the output window: > > xorl %eax, %eax > > In other words, the expression next to the return statement evaluates to zero > but the same expression does not evaluate to zero in the BUILD_BUG_ON() > statement. Does this perhaps indicate a compiler bug? And if so, what is the > appropriate way to fix the build error? Insert an #ifdef/#endif pair inside > ufshcd_check_header_layout() such that the compile-time checks do not happen > for gcc version 9 or older?
I played around it some more, and this apparently comes down to constant-folding in sub-byte bitfields, so in the older compilers neither the ==0x80 nor the !=0x80 case can be ruled out because of a missing optimization. Instead the generated code would try to initialize the variable at runtime and then do a conditional branch to the assert, but that of course fails the build.
I'd suggest something like
if (defined(GCC_VERSION) && GCC_VERSION < 100000) return;
before the assertion, in that case it doesn't evaluate it.
Arnd
| |