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
References: <20180622192718.24242-1-malat@debian.org> <b41b244e-78b8-c85f-9122-427ad04cccf8@c-s.fr>
 <20180623194716.GY16221@gate.crashing.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180623194716.GY16221@gate.crashing.org>
From:   Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:27:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+7wUsx4wpiP+q7NusNgFYfAM3gbnvOOPgrjq4QV7iA510noCg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5BPATCH=5D_powerpc=2Fxmon=3A_avoid_warnings_about_varia?=
        =?UTF-8?Q?bles_that_might_be_clobbered_by_=E2=80=98longjmp=E2=80=99?=
To:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>,
        Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 9:47 PM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 06:59:27PM +0200, christophe leroy wrote:
> >
> >
> > Le 22/06/2018 à 21:27, Mathieu Malaterre a écrit :
> > >Move initialization of variables after data definitions. This silence
> > >warnings treated as error with W=1:
> > >
> > >   arch/powerpc/xmon/xmon.c:3389:14: error: variable ‘name’ might be
> > >   clobbered by ‘longjmp’ or ‘vfork’ [-Werror=clobbered]
> > >   arch/powerpc/xmon/xmon.c:3100:22: error: variable ‘tsk’ might be
> > >   clobbered by ‘longjmp’ or ‘vfork’ [-Werror=clobbered]
> >
> > Is that an invalid warning ?
>
> No, both are correct warnings.  GCC can not see which functions it only
> has a declaration of can call longjmp.

I assumed those were false positive warnings, given how easy it was to
defeat them. Let give it another try.

> > Otherwise, I'd expect one to fix the warning, not just cheat on GCC.
>
> Yes, the patch seems to change the code in such a way that some versions
> of GCC will no longer warn.  Which does not make to code any more correct.
>
> Either restructure the code, or make the var non-automatic, or make it
> volatile.
>
>
> Segher