On Sep 23, 2014, at 7:49 AM, Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:01:20AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> ./arch/x86/include/asm/io_apic.h: In function ‘io_apic_modify’: >> ./arch/x86/include/asm/io_apic.h:223:48: warning: declaration of ‘apic’ shadows a global declaration [-Wshadow] >> static inline void io_apic_modify(unsigned int apic, unsigned int reg, unsigned int value) >> ^ >> In file included from ./arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h:12:0, >> from include/linux/smp.h:59, >> from include/linux/topology.h:33, >> from include/linux/gfp.h:8, >> from include/linux/kmod.h:22, >> from include/linux/module.h:13, >> from drivers/edac/amd64_edac.h:65, >> from drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c:1: >> ./arch/x86/include/asm/apic.h:366:21: warning: shadowed declaration is here [-Wshadow] >> extern struct apic *apic; >> ^ >> >> So gcc complains that an unsigned int shadows a struct apic pointer. > > Here, I think the right fix involves picking a more descriptive name > than "apic" for the global varible. I agree, but I don't know enough about the area to necessarily know what it should be called instead. I do have a patch that changes the local variables instead, but even as I made it, I didn't really think it was right. But it silenced a ton of warnings and let me see other things. -- Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
