Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <1732342f-49fe-c20e-b877-bc0a340e1a50@fu-berlin.de>
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 23:11:09 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.6.1
To:     John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com,
        linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
        Michael Karcher <kernel@mkarcher.dialup.fu-berlin.de>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
References: <CAHk-=wgf929uGOVpiWALPyC7pv_9KbwB2EAvQ3C4woshZZ5zqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20221227082932.798359-1-geert@linux-m68k.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2212270933530.311423@ramsan.of.borg>
 <c05bee5d-0d69-289b-fe4b-98f4cd31a4f5@physik.fu-berlin.de>
 <CAMuHMdXNJveXHeS=g-aHbnxtyACxq1wCeaTg8LbpYqJTCqk86g@mail.gmail.com>
 <3800eaa8-a4da-b2f0-da31-6627176cb92e@physik.fu-berlin.de>
 <CAMuHMdWbBRkhecrqcir92TgZnffMe8ku2t7PcVLqA6e6F-j=iw@mail.gmail.com>
 <429140e0-72fe-c91c-53bc-124d33ab5ffa@physik.fu-berlin.de>
 <CAMuHMdWpHSsAB3WosyCVgS6+t4pU35Xfj3tjmdCDoyS2QkS7iw@mail.gmail.com>
 <0d238f02-4d78-6f14-1b1b-f53f0317a910@physik.fu-berlin.de>
From:   "Michael.Karcher" <Michael.Karcher@fu-berlin.de>
Subject: Re: Calculating array sizes in C - was: Re: Build
 regressions/improvements in v6.2-rc1
In-Reply-To: <0d238f02-4d78-6f14-1b1b-f53f0317a910@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Isn't this supposed to be caught by this check:
>>>
>>>          a, __same_type(a, NULL)
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>> Yeah, but gcc thinks it is smarter than us...
>> Probably it drops the test, assuming UB cannot happen.
> Hmm, sounds like a GGC bug to me then. Not sure how to fix this then.


I don't see a clear bug at this point. We are talking about the C expression

   __same_type((void*)0, (void*)0)? 0 : sizeof((void*)0)/sizeof(*((void*0))

This expression is valid (assuming __same_type works, which is a GCC 
extension), and should return 0. As of now, I have no indication that 
this expression does not return 0. Also, it is true that this expression 
contains the suspicious pattern "sizeof(void*)/sizeof(void)", which is 
does not calculate the size of any array. GCC is free to emit as much 
warnings is it wants for any kind of expressions. From a C standard 
point of view, it's just a "quality of implementation" issue, and an 
implementation that emits useless warnings is of low quality, but not 
non-conforming.

In this case, we requested that gcc refuses to compile if it emits any 
kind of warning, which instructs gcc to reject programs that would be 
valid according to the C standard, but are deemed to be "likely incorrect".

I suggest to file a bug against gcc complaining about a "spurious 
warning", and using "-Werror -Wno-error-sizeof-pointer-div" until gcc is 
adapted to not emit the warning about the pointer division if the result 
is not used.


Regards,
   Michael Karcher