On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 3:55 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> So I think that clang warning is only annoying, not helpful, but:
>
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 3:22 PM Bill Wendling <morbo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> > index a5495ad31c9c..92dd9b8784f2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> > @@ -388,9 +388,9 @@ static acpi_status acpi_gpiochip_alloc_event(struct acpi_resource *ares,
> >
> > if (pin <= 255) {
> > char ev_name[5];
> > - sprintf(ev_name, "_%c%02hhX",
> > + sprintf(ev_name, "_%c%02X",
>
> This part I approve of.
>
> > agpio->triggering == ACPI_EDGE_SENSITIVE ? 'E' : 'L',
> > - pin);
> > + (unsigned char)pin);
>
> But this cast seems pointless and wrong.
>
You're right. I was trying to ensure that the patch didn't change
behavior. But the cast achieves nothing. Thanks!
-bw
> Casts in general are bad, and should be avoided unless there's a real
> reason for them. And that reason doesn't seem to exist. We don't
> actually want to truncate the value of 'pin', and just a few lines
> earlier actually checked that it is in range.
>
> And if 'pin' can't be negative - it comes from a 'u16' table
> dereference - but even if it could have been that would have been a
> different bug here anyway (and should have been fixed by tightening
> the check).
>
> So the cast doesn't add anything - not for humans, and not for a
> compiler that could just optimize it away because it saw the range
> check.
>
> End result: just fix the pointless 'hh' in the print specifier. It
> doesn't add anything, and only causes problems. Anybody who uses '%02X
> to print a byte should only use it for byte values - and the code
> already does.
>
> Of course, the _reason_ for this all was a warning that was pointless
> to begin with, and should never have existed. Clang was not smart
> enough to take the range knowledge that it _could_ have taken into
> account, and instead wrote out a completely bogus warning.
>
> It's completely bogus not just because clang didn't do a sufficiently
> good job of range analysis - it's completely bogus because a 'varargs'
> function DOES NOT TAKE arguments of type 'char'.
>
> So the *only* reason to use '%hhX' in the first place is that you
> *want* the sprintf() to actually limit the value to a byte for you
> (possibly because you have a signed char, know it will sign-extend to
> 'int', and want to limit it back to 8 bits).
>
> If you *actually* had a 'unsigned char' to begin with, you'd be
> completely insane to use %hhX. It's just pointless.
>
> So warning that '%hhX' is paired with an 'int' is all just completely
> mindless and wrong.
>
> Linus
