On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:16 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/17/2014 10:00 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After merging the tip tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
>> allmodconfig) produced these warnings:
>>
>> In file included from arch/x86/vdso/vdso2c.c:161:0:
>> arch/x86/vdso/vdso2c.c: In function 'main':
>> arch/x86/vdso/vdso2c.h:118:6: warning: assuming signed overflow
>> does not occur when assuming that (X + c) < X is always false
>> [-Wstrict-overflow] In file included from
>> arch/x86/vdso/vdso2c.c:165:0: arch/x86/vdso/vdso2c.h:118:6:
>> warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when assuming that
>> (X + c) < X is always false [-Wstrict-overflow]
>>
>> Probably introduced by commit e6577a7ce99a ("x86, vdso: Move the
>> vvar area before the vdso text").
>>
>
> This seems toxic.
>
> I always wonder if we shouldn't use -fwrapv for the kernel...
This particular warning is IMO in a particularly dumb category: GCC
optimizes some code and then warns about a construct that wasn't there
in the original code. In this case, I think it unrolled a loop and
discovered that one iteration contained a test that was always true.
Big deal.
(OTOH, the code in question was buggy, but not all for the reason that
GCC thought it was.)
--Andy
>
> -hpa
>
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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
