Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200624035920.835571-1-natechancellor@gmail.com>
 <CAMuHMdU_KfQ-RT_nev5LgN=Vj_P97Fn=nwRoC6ZREFLa3Ysj7w@mail.gmail.com> <20200720210252.GO30544@gate.crashing.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200720210252.GO30544@gate.crashing.org>
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date:   Mon, 3 Aug 2020 12:06:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdUmHE-KVQuo=b2rn9EPgmnqSDi4i16NPbL5rXLLSCoyKg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/boot: Use address-of operator on section symbols
To:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Geoff Levand <geoff@infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Segher,

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:03 PM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 09:50:50AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 6:02 AM Nathan Chancellor
> > <natechancellor@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >         /* If we have an image attached to us, it overrides anything
> > >          * supplied by the loader. */
> > > -       if (_initrd_end > _initrd_start) {
> > > +       if (&_initrd_end > &_initrd_start) {
> >
> > Are you sure that fix is correct?
> >
> >     extern char _initrd_start[];
> >     extern char _initrd_end[];
> >     extern char _esm_blob_start[];
> >     extern char _esm_blob_end[];
> >
> > Of course the result of their comparison is a constant, as the addresses
> > are constant.  If clangs warns about it, perhaps that warning should be moved
> > to W=1?
> >
> > But adding "&" is not correct, according to C.
>
> Why not?
>
> 6.5.3.2/3
> The unary & operator yields the address of its operand.  [...]
> Otherwise, the result is a pointer to the object or function designated
> by its operand.
>
> This is the same as using the name of an array without anything else,
> yes.  It is a bit clearer if it would not be declared as array, perhaps,
> but it is correct just fine like this.

Thanks, I stand corrected.

Regardless, the comparison is still a comparison between two constant
addresses, so my fear is that the compiler will start generating
warnings for that in the near or distant future, making this change
futile.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds