On 6/11/24 11:30 AM, Carlos Llamas wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 02:16:22PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
When building with clang, via:
make LLVM=1 -C tools/testing/selftests
...there are several warnings, and an error. This fixes all of those and
allows these tests to run and pass.
It might be best to split the 4 _different_ fixes into separate patches.
If necessary, that can be done. It's sufficiently difficult to attract
attention for selftests (see below) that I'm reluctant to make it even
harder to get it all fixed, though.
1. Fix linker error (undefined reference to memcpy) by providing a local
version of memcpy.
2. clang complains about using this form:
if (g = h & 0xf0000000)
...so factor out the assignment into a separate step.
There has been multiple attempts to fix this. I can see these two:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211206102931.1433871-1-anders.roxell@xxxxxxxxxx/
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240501002150.1370861-1-edliaw@xxxxxxxxxx/
... I guess we somehow missed those?
I guess so. :)
3. The code is passing a signed const char* to elf_hash(), which expects
a const unsigned char *. There are several callers, so fix this at
the source by allowing the function to accept a signed argument, and
then converting to unsigned operations, once inside the function.
There is also a v4 fix for this item that was sent out here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240506181951.1804451-1-edliaw@xxxxxxxxxx/
No idea why these fixes are not getting picked up.
4. clang doesn't have __attribute__((externally_visible)) and generates
a warning to that effect. Fortunately, gcc 12 and gcc 13 do not seem
to require that attribute in order to build, run and pass tests here,
so remove it.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240329-selftests-libmk-llvm-rfc-v1-1-2f9ed7d1c49f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
What is this about? Left over from v1 maybe?
Maybe.
Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
I would prefer to pick up the fixes from folks who sent out the patches
first but I'm fine either way.
I'm perfectly fine with dropping this and letting the other patches go
in, but *something* needs to go in.
Reviewed-by: Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for the review! I have no earthly idea what will happen next.
I'd like to hear at least something from the maintainers about their
intentions here.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
