* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Today's linux-next build (sparc64 defconfig) failed like this:
>
> kernel/time/tick-common.c: In function `tick_check_new_device':
> kernel/time/tick-common.c:210: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
> kernel/time/tick-common.c:223: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
> kernel/time/tick-common.c:255: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
>
> gcc is version 3.4.5 sparc64 cross compiler (powercp64 host).
>
> The below patch fixes it.
>
> when you take the address of the result. Noticed on a sparc64 compile
> using a version 3.4.5 cross compiler.
>
> kernel/time/tick-common.c: In function `tick_check_new_device':
> kernel/time/tick-common.c:210: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
> kernel/time/tick-common.c:223: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
> kernel/time/tick-common.c:255: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/cpumask.h | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpumask.h b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> index 96d0509..d3219d7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpumask.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h
> @@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ static inline const cpumask_t *get_cpu_mask(unsigned int cpu)
> * gcc optimizes it out (it's a constant) and there's no huge stack
> * variable created:
> */
> -#define cpumask_of_cpu(cpu) ({ *get_cpu_mask(cpu); })
> +#define cpumask_of_cpu(cpu) (*get_cpu_mask(cpu))
hm, i'm wondering - is this a compiler bug?
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
