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;
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/boot: Use address-of operator on section symbols
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdUmHE-KVQuo=b2rn9EPgmnqSDi4i16NPbL5rXLLSCoyKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200624035920.835571-1-natechancellor@gmail.com> <CAMuHMdU_KfQ-RT_nev5LgN=Vj_P97Fn=nwRoC6ZREFLa3Ysj7w@mail.gmail.com> <20200720210252.GO30544@gate.crashing.org> <CAMuHMdUmHE-KVQuo=b2rn9EPgmnqSDi4i16NPbL5rXLLSCoyKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 03 Aug 2020 21:09:36 +1000
Message-ID: <87zh7cyoi7.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> writes:
> 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.

They're not constant at compile time though. So I don't think the
compiler could (sensibly) warn about that? (surely!)

cheers