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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: kvm: avoid -Wsometimes-uninitized warning
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Roman Kagan <rkagan@virtuozzo.com>
Cc:     =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Liran Alon <liran.alon@oracle.com>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com" 
        <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>
References: <20190712091239.716978-1-arnd@arndb.de>
 <20190712120249.GA27820@rkaganb.sw.ru>
 <CAK8P3a3+QSRQkitXiDFLYvyYvOS+Q4sXb=xA_XPeX2O2zQ5kgw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <b7da5e91-f23c-9f5d-2c61-07e7fc7af9b1@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 Jul 2019 15:14:08 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a3+QSRQkitXiDFLYvyYvOS+Q4sXb=xA_XPeX2O2zQ5kgw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 12/07/19 15:02, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I think what happens here is that clang does not treat the return
> code of track the return code of is_64_bit_mode() as a constant
> expression, and therefore assumes that the if() condition
> may or may not be true, for the purpose of determining whether
> the variable is used without an inialization. This would hold even
> if it later eliminates the code leading up to the if() in an optimization
> stage. IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64) however is a constant
> expression, so with the patch, it understands this.
> 
> In contrast, gcc seems to perform all the inlining first, and
> then see if some variable is used uninitialized in the final code.
> This gives additional information to the compiler, but makes the
> outcome less predictable since it depends on optimization flags
> and architecture specific behavior.
> 
> Both approaches have their own sets of false positive and false
> negative warnings.

True, on the other hand constant returns are not really rocket science. :)

Maybe change is_long_mode to a macro if !CONFIG_X86_64?  That would be
better if clang likes it.

Paolo