On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 06:48:07AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 12:25:03PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > On 21/04/2020 17.15, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, dropping pointer qualifiers inside the macro poses quite
> > > a challenge, especially since the pointed-to type is permitted to be an
> > > aggregate, and this is relied upon by mm/ code accessing things like
> > > 'pmd_t'. Based on numerous hacks and discussions on the mailing list,
> > > this is the best I've managed to come up with.
> >
> > Hm, maybe this can be brought to work, only very lightly tested. It
> > basically abuses what -Wignored-qualifiers points out:
> >
> > warning: type qualifiers ignored on function return type
> >
> > Example showing the idea:
> >
> > const int c(void);
> > volatile int v(void);
> >
> > int hack(int x, int y)
> > {
> > typeof(c()) a = x;
> > typeof(v()) b = y;
> >
> > a += b;
> > b += a;
> > a += b;
> > return a;
> > }
>
> Nasty. I like it :-)
>
> > Since that compiles, a cannot be const-qualified, and the generated code
> > certainly suggests that b is not volatile-qualified. So something like
> >
> > #define unqual_type(x) _unqual_type(x, unique_id_dance)
> > #define _unqual_type(x, id) typeof( ({
> > typeof(x) id(void);
> > id();
> > }) )
> >
> > and perhaps some _Pragma("GCC diagnostic push")/_Pragma("GCC diagnostic
> > ignored -Wignored-qualifiers")/_Pragma("GCC diagnostic pop") could
> > prevent the warning (which is in -Wextra, so I don't think it would
> > appear in a normal build anyway).
> >
> > No idea how well any of this would work across gcc versions or with clang.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg01054.html
>
> This is defined to work this way in ISO C since C11.
>
> But, it doesn't work with GCC before GCC 7 :-(
Damn, that's quite a cool hack! Maybe we'll be able to implement it in a
few years time ;)
WIll
