On 05/30/2018 04:06 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 12:00 AM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Luc, >> >> The typo in the subject made me curious... >> >> Am 30.05.2018 um 22:48 schrieb Luc Van Oostenryck: >>> By default, sparse assumes a 64bit machine when compiled on x86-64 >>> and 32bit when compiled on anything else. >>> >>> This can of course create all sort of problems for the other archs, like >>> issuing false warnings ('shift too big (32) for type unsigned long'), or >>> worse, failing to emit legitimate warnings. >>> >>> Fix this by adding the -m32/-m64 flag, depending on CONFIG_64BIT, >>> to CHECKFLAGS in the main Makefile (and so for all archs). >>> Also, remove the now unneeded -m32/-m64 in arch specific Makefiles. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Makefile | 3 +++ >>> arch/alpha/Makefile | 2 +- >>> arch/arm/Makefile | 2 +- >>> arch/arm64/Makefile | 2 +- >>> arch/ia64/Makefile | 2 +- >>> arch/mips/Makefile | 3 --- >>> arch/parisc/Makefile | 2 +- >>> arch/sparc/Makefile | 2 +- >>> arch/x86/Makefile | 2 +- >>> 9 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >> >> What about the architectures not touched by your patch that previously >> had no -m32/-m64? (arc, c6x, h8300, hexagon, m68k, microblaze, nds32, >> nios2, openrisc, powerpc, riscv, s390, sh, unicore32, xtensa) > > As explained in the patch, by default sparse uses -m64 if compiled on x86-64 > and 32bit on everything else (well, more recent versions use -m64 if > compiled on any 64 bit machine). I think that most ppc devs use a ppc > machine and so ppc was most probably fine (at least ppc64) but I suspect > that most of these others archs either had never sparse used on them > or had a lot of wrong warnings. IOW, it was maybe OK but most probably > incorrect for them and now it is OK. > >> You forgot to CC them on this patch. > > I didn't thought/knew it was needed and the CC list is already > quite long but, if needed, no problem for me. Ideally, adding linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx would be sufficient, but sadly I have doubts about that. >> Have you really checked that all their toolchains support the -m32/-m64 >> flags you newly introduce for them? Apart from non-biarch architectures, >> I'm thinking of 31-bit s390 as a corner case where !64 != 32. > > Hmm, there is no change to anything I call 'toolchain related', like > compiler and linker. The only change is sparse (or any other checker) > receiving now a correct and explicit -m32 or -m64. > > For s390, as far as I know: > 1) it has CONFIG_64BIT unconditionally definee (because the old 31bit > is no more supported, now everything is s390x only). > 2) even if the *address space* was only 31 bit, I'm very sure > that sizeof(long) and sizeof(void*) was 4 on these machine > hence -m32 would have been correct. -- ~Randy -- 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