Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-09-14 at 18:44 -0700, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> > While fixing the W=1 builds, this warning came up because the
> > developers used a very tricky way to get structures initialized
> > to a non-zero value, but this causes GCC to warn about an
> > override. In this case the override was intentional, so just
> > disable the warning for this code with a macro that results
> > in disabling the warning for compiles on GCC versions after 8.
> >
> > NOTE: the __diag_ignore macro currently only accepts a second
> > argument of 8 (version 80000)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/sh_eth.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/sh_eth.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/sh_eth.c
> > index 586642c33d2b..c63304632935 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/sh_eth.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/sh_eth.c
> > @@ -45,6 +45,15 @@
> > #define SH_ETH_OFFSET_DEFAULTS \
> > [0 ... SH_ETH_MAX_REGISTER_OFFSET - 1] = SH_ETH_OFFSET_INVALID
> >
> > +/* use some intentionally tricky logic here to initialize the whole
> > struct to
> > + * 0xffff, but then override certain fields, requiring us to
> > indicate that we
> > + * "know" that there are overrides in this structure, and we'll need
> > to disable
> > + * that warning from W=1 builds. GCC has supported this option since
> > 4.2.X, but
> > + * the macros available to do this only define GCC 8.
> > + */
> > +__diag_push();
> > +__diag_ignore(GCC, 8, "-Woverride-init",
> > + "logic to initialize all and then override some is OK");
> > static const u16 sh_eth_offset_gigabit[SH_ETH_MAX_REGISTER_OFFSET] =
> > {
> > SH_ETH_OFFSET_DEFAULTS,
> >
> > @@ -332,6 +341,7 @@ static const u16
> > sh_eth_offset_fast_sh3_sh2[SH_ETH_MAX_REGISTER_OFFSET] = {
> >
> > [TSU_ADRH0] = 0x0100,
> > };
> > +__diag_pop();
> >
>
> I don't have any strong feeling against disabling compiler warnings,
> but maybe the right thing to do here is to initialize the gaps to the
> invalid value instead of pre-initializing the whole thing first and
> then setting up the valid values on the 2nd pass.
>
> I don't think there are too many gaps to fill, it is doable, so maybe
> add this as a comment to this driver maintainer so they could pickup
> the work from here.
added linux-renesas-soc list. @list, any comments on Saeed's comment
above?
Thanks,
Jesse
