Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <5f6c1dd7-982b-2214-f229-80a8ae40780d@acm.org>
Date:   Tue, 1 Aug 2023 13:15:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: next: arm64: gcc-8-defconfig: ufshcd.c:10629:2:
 /builds/linux/include/linux/compiler_types.h:397:38: error: call to
 '__compiletime_assert_553' declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG_ON
 failed:
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>
Cc:     open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-next <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>
References: <CA+G9fYur8UJoUyTLJFVEJPh-15TJ7kbdD2q8xVz8a3fLjkxxVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <a660adba-b73b-1c02-f642-c287bb4c72fc@acm.org>
 <CA+G9fYsYifn9ywPc8KqYHwDDSTRQGOgf_T58Gpt9CYDBs8u+SQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <227327a3-399a-4a9f-a775-e9627656b5a1@app.fastmail.com>
 <67f2a68f-8462-e1de-c016-b84d7c6e3222@acm.org>
 <1f7e045a-5dc1-4667-b09d-bc74953e48b0@app.fastmail.com>
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <1f7e045a-5dc1-4667-b09d-bc74953e48b0@app.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 8/1/23 12:54, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023, at 19:51, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 8/1/23 07:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023, at 16:23, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>>
>> If I change the return type of ufshcd_check_header_layout() from void
>> into unsigned int and insert the following at the start of that function:
>>
>> return ((u8 *)&(struct request_desc_header){ .enable_crypto = 1})[2] != 0x80;
>>
>> then the compiler shows the following in the output window:
>>
>> xorl    %eax, %eax
>>
>> In other words, the expression next to the return statement evaluates to zero
>> but the same expression does not evaluate to zero in the BUILD_BUG_ON()
>> statement. Does this perhaps indicate a compiler bug? And if so, what is the
>> appropriate way to fix the build error? Insert an #ifdef/#endif pair inside
>> ufshcd_check_header_layout() such that the compile-time checks do not happen
>> for gcc version 9 or older?
> 
> I played around it some more, and this apparently comes
> down to constant-folding in sub-byte bitfields, so in the
> older compilers neither the ==0x80 nor the !=0x80 case
> can be ruled out because of a missing optimization.
> Instead the generated code would try to initialize the
> variable at runtime and then do a conditional branch to
> the assert, but that of course fails the build.
> 
> I'd suggest something like
> 
>      if (defined(GCC_VERSION) && GCC_VERSION < 100000)
>              return;
> 
> before the assertion, in that case it doesn't evaluate it.

An untested patch has been posted on the linux-scsi mailing list. It would
be really appreciated if someone could help with testing that patch since
none of the Linux distro's that I use regularly provides binaries for gcc-9
nor for gcc-8.

Thanks,

Bart.