Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180227204243.GW21977@gate.crashing.org>
References: <20180225172236.29650-1-malat@debian.org> <20180225172236.29650-2-malat@debian.org>
 <CAHp75Vdpdr-0-vdvo0SBx2XcM=HePrUbbb4SM9+ExT_i-1B69Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHp75Ve_zxp4_N_YzzvJ=H8Qs65G5j7bgGBv_TvsZ6Ye2nuECA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+7wUszK++8Tr9j1=4jQtRSu-36MH=dqgimq-ST9D9hvacrJSQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <603d5335-6220-73f2-d902-b92bc74bc79e@c-s.fr> <CA+7wUsys=J8vkEOtzd26B6MGEhfTBRzaA_myuUWNzf24rMvn+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHp75VePco3hNo_vM916CiLzBAd18i=O1TaecD5YEDewvMpYYQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180227204243.GW21977@gate.crashing.org>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Feb 2018 17:50:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfmSNs4jHJjybGHisHSGiwcYv8msBjhshp7bAQNDW9Oag@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/21] powerpc: Remove warning on array size when empty
To:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org>,
        "open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC PA SEMI PWRFICIENT" 
        <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Segher Boessenkool
<segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 05:52:06PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Christophe LEROY
>> > <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Much simpler is just add
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> if (ARRAY_SIZE() == 0)
>> >>>>>   return;
>>
>> >> Or add in front:
>> >> if (!ARRAY_SIZE(feature_properties))
>> >>         return;
>> >
>> > (not tested) I believe the compiler still go over the for() loop and
>> > will complain about the original unsigned comparison.
>>
>> Did you run tests? Did you look into object file?
>>
>> In kernel we much rely on the compiling away the code which is
>> deterministically not in use.
>> Here I'm pretty sure it will compile away entire function.
>
> It does, but it also still warns (this warning is done very early in the
> compiler pipeline).

Oh, I see.
Then the while () approach looks to me the best here.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko