On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 02:43:21PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 9:17 AM Michel Dänzer <michel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 2020-02-12 6:07 p.m., Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 09:52:52AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > >> On 2020-02-11 9:39 p.m., Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > >>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 10:41:48AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > >>>> On 2020-02-11 7:13 a.m., Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > >>>>> A recent commit in clang added -Wtautological-compare to -Wall, which is > > >>>>> enabled for i915 so we see the following warning: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> ../drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c:1485:22: warning: > > >>>>> result of comparison of constant 576460752303423487 with expression of > > >>>>> type 'unsigned int' is always false > > >>>>> [-Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare] > > >>>>> if (unlikely(remain > N_RELOC(ULONG_MAX))) > > >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >>>>> > > >>>>> This warning only happens on x86_64 but that check is relevant for > > >>>>> 32-bit x86 so we cannot remove it. > > >>>> > > >>>> That's suprising. AFAICT N_RELOC(ULONG_MAX) works out to the same value > > >>>> in both cases, and remain is a 32-bit value in both cases. How can it be > > >>>> larger than N_RELOC(ULONG_MAX) on 32-bit (but not on 64-bit)? > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> Hi Michel, > > >>> > > >>> Can't this condition be true when UINT_MAX == ULONG_MAX? > > >> > > >> Oh, right, I think I was wrongly thinking long had 64 bits even on 32-bit. > > >> > > >> > > >> Anyway, this suggests a possible better solution: > > >> > > >> #if UINT_MAX == ULONG_MAX > > >> if (unlikely(remain > N_RELOC(ULONG_MAX))) > > >> return -EINVAL; > > >> #endif > > >> > > >> > > >> Or if that can't be used for some reason, something like > > >> > > >> if (unlikely((unsigned long)remain > N_RELOC(ULONG_MAX))) > > >> return -EINVAL; > > >> > > >> should silence the warning. > > > > > > I do like this one better than the former. > > > > FWIW, one downside of this one compared to all alternatives (presumably) > > is that it might end up generating actual code even on 64-bit, which > > always ends up skipping the return. > > The warning is pointing out that the conditional is always false, > which is correct on 64b. The check is only active for 32b. > https://godbolt.org/z/oQrgT_ > The cast silences the warning for 64b. (Note that GCC and Clang also > generate precisely the same instruction sequences in my example, just > GCC doesn't warn on such tautologies). Thanks for confirming! I'll send a patch to add the cast later tonight. Cheers, Nathan _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
