Patchwork linux-next: tree build failure

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Hollis Blanchard
Date Oct. 19, 2009, 6:19 p.m.
Message ID <1255976369.13995.98.camel@slab.beaverton.ibm.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/36390/
State Superseded
Headers show

Comments

Hollis Blanchard - Oct. 19, 2009, 6:19 p.m.
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 08:27 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@us.ibm.com> 15.10.09 00:57 >>>
> >On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 12:14 -0700, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> >> Rusty's version of BUILD_BUG_ON() does indeed fix the build break, and
> >> also exposes the bug in kvmppc_account_exit_stat(). So to recap:
> >> 
> >> original: built but didn't work
> >> Jan's: doesn't build
> >> Rusty's: builds and works
> >> 
> >> Where do you want to go from here?
> >
> >Jan, what are your thoughts? Your BUILD_BUG_ON patch has broken the
> >build, and we still need to fix it.
> 
> My perspective is that it just uncovered already existing brokenness. And
> honestly, I won't be able to get to look into this within the next days. (And
> btw., when I run into issues with other people's code changes, quite
> frequently I'm told to propose a patch, so I'm also having some
> philosophical problem understanding why I can't simply expect the same
> when people run into issues with changes I made, especially in cases like
> this where it wasn't me introducing the broken code.) So, if this can wait
> for a couple of days, I can try to find time to look into this. Otherwise, I'd
> rely on someone running into the actual issue to implement a solution.

Sorry, I thought it was clear, but to be more explicit: I propose the
following patch, which replaces the current BUILD_BUG_ON implementation
with Rusty's version.
Rusty Russell - Oct. 20, 2009, 1:12 a.m.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:49:29 am Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 08:27 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > My perspective is that it just uncovered already existing brokenness.
> 
> Sorry, I thought it was clear, but to be more explicit: I propose the
> following patch, which replaces the current BUILD_BUG_ON implementation
> with Rusty's version.

OK, I switched my brain back on.  Yeah, I agree: we may still want
BUILD_OR_RUNTIME_BUG_ON one day, but I like this.

It's just missing the giant comment that it needs :)

/**
 * BUILD_BUG_ON - break compile if a condition is true.
 * @cond: the condition which the compiler should know is false.
 *
 * If you have some code which relies on certain constants being equal, or
 * other compile-time-evaluated condition, you should use BUILD_BUG_ON to
 * detect if someone changes it.
 *
 * The implementation uses gcc's reluctance to create a negative array, but
 * gcc (as of 4.4) only emits that error for obvious cases (eg. not arguments
 * to inline functions).  So as a fallback we use the optimizer; if it can't
 * prove the condition is false, it will cause a link error on the undefined
 * "__build_bug_on_failed".  This error is less neat, and can be harder to
 * track down.
 */

Thanks!
Rusty.
Hollis Blanchard - Oct. 20, 2009, 1:29 a.m.
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 11:42 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:49:29 am Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 08:27 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > My perspective is that it just uncovered already existing brokenness.
> > 
> > Sorry, I thought it was clear, but to be more explicit: I propose the
> > following patch, which replaces the current BUILD_BUG_ON implementation
> > with Rusty's version.
> 
> OK, I switched my brain back on.  Yeah, I agree: we may still want
> BUILD_OR_RUNTIME_BUG_ON one day, but I like this.
> 
> It's just missing the giant comment that it needs :)
> 
> /**
>  * BUILD_BUG_ON - break compile if a condition is true.
>  * @cond: the condition which the compiler should know is false.
>  *
>  * If you have some code which relies on certain constants being equal, or
>  * other compile-time-evaluated condition, you should use BUILD_BUG_ON to
>  * detect if someone changes it.
>  *
>  * The implementation uses gcc's reluctance to create a negative array, but
>  * gcc (as of 4.4) only emits that error for obvious cases (eg. not arguments
>  * to inline functions).  So as a fallback we use the optimizer; if it can't
>  * prove the condition is false, it will cause a link error on the undefined
>  * "__build_bug_on_failed".  This error is less neat, and can be harder to
>  * track down.
>  */

Do you want to put together a signed-off patch Rusty? It's your code, so
I don't feel comfortable doing that.

Once we have that, can we remove the mysterious MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON
statements introduced in previous patches? (Does it BUG or doesn't it??)

Patch

diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.h b/include/linux/kernel.h
--- a/include/linux/kernel.h
+++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
@@ -677,18 +677,19 @@  struct sysinfo {
 	char _f[20-2*sizeof(long)-sizeof(int)];	/* Padding: libc5 uses this.. */
 };
 
-/* Force a compilation error if condition is true */
-#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) ((void)BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(condition))
-
-/* Force a compilation error if condition is constant and true */
-#define MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON(cond) ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2 * !!(cond)]))
-
-/* Force a compilation error if condition is true, but also produce a
-   result (of value 0 and type size_t), so the expression can be used
-   e.g. in a structure initializer (or where-ever else comma expressions
-   aren't permitted). */
-#define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) (sizeof(struct { int:-!!(e); }))
-#define BUILD_BUG_ON_NULL(e) ((void *)sizeof(struct { int:-!!(e); }))
+#ifndef __OPTIMIZE__
+#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)]))
+#else
+/* If it's a constant, catch it at compile time, otherwise at link time. */
+extern int __build_bug_on_failed;
+#define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) (sizeof(char[1 - 2 * !!(e)]) - 1)
+#define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) \
+		do {                                                            \
+				((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)]));              \
+				if (condition) __build_bug_on_failed = 1;               \
+		} while(0)
+#define MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) BUILD_BUG_ON(condition)
+#endif
 
 /* Trap pasters of __FUNCTION__ at compile-time */
 #define __FUNCTION__ (__func__)