On 12/21/2016 12:13 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I was trying to run sparse against the upstream kpatch project and ran >> into problems with an include file that defined an "x86_64" variable: > > Yeah,. that's bogus. It should be removed. It goes back to the > original x86-64 specific cgcc patch from 2007 (commit 0fcbcbf: > "Implement x86-64 support in cgcc"). > > It may be that old versions of gcc did the same, who knows. They > definitely don't any more, I checked: > > $ gcc -dM -E - < /dev/null | grep -v 'define __' > > #define _STDC_PREDEF_H 1 > #define unix 1 > #define linux 1 > #define _LP64 1 > > and so gcc itself definitely doesn't do the x86_64 thing (it does > pre-define versions with double underscores before and after): > > $ gcc -dM -E - < /dev/null | grep x86 > #define __x86_64 1 > #define __x86_64__ 1 > >> I can avoid this by renaming the structure member to something like >> "foo_x86_64". I believe the problem stems from cgcc passing "-Dx86_64" >> to gcc... sparse later gets confused as there is now a preprocessor >> variable defined with the same name. > > You shouldn't need that. > >> We could s/x86_64/something_else/g across the whole project to avoid >> this glitch, but was wondering if there was a better way. > > The fix it so just remove x86_64 from cgcc. It already does define the > underscored versions. > > Same for the other architectures, for that matter. Obvios trivial (and > totally untested) patch attached. > Thanks, Linus! The patch worked well for me, so consider this tested (on x86_64 at least). -- Joe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
