On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2017-05-24 17:21 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>: >> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> El Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:45:29AM -0700 Matthias Kaehlcke ha dit: >>>> El Wed, May 17, 2017 at 09:35:57AM +0200 Arnd Bergmann ha dit: >>>> > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> It seems the duplicate-decl-specifier warning targets specifically C89: >>> >>> "The same type qualifier shall not appear more than once in the same >>> specifier list or qualifier list, either directly or via one or more >>> typedefs." >>> >>> C89 (6.5.3) >>> >>> gcc also raises a warning when '-pedantic' is specified and >>> -std=gnu89/c89 (or unspecified), but not with -std=gnu99/c99. >>> >>> This bug might help to shed more light on this: >>> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32985 >> >> I also notice that neither compiler differentiates between a) >> >> typedef const int cint; >> const cint i; >> >> and b) >> const int i; >> const typeof(a) j; >> >> I would have expected a warning for a) but not b), but both 'clang --std=gnu89' >> and 'gcc --pedantic --std=gnu89' warn about both of b as well, and don't warn >> for newer standards. >> >> Arnd > > > > > I think we agreed to apply 1/2. > > How about 2/2? > > I think we mostly discussed preferable behavior of -Wduplicate-decl-specifier, > but we did not come up with an idea to solve the problem for > already shipped clang versions. > (BTW, we have not defined the minimal supported version of clang yet.) I see that container_of() has been modified in linux-next and no longer adds the 'const' keyword, do we actually still need the patch? Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html