On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:44 PM Daniel Santos <daniel.santos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 08/27/2018 03:09 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> >> Now we're back to the question of "what do you mean by 'constant'"? If
> >> you mean a C constant expression (as defined in the C standard) than
> >> almost none of this code fits that criteria. For these compile-time
> >> assertions to work, we are concerned with the data flow analysis and
> >> constant propagation performed by the compiler during optimization. You
> >> will notice in include/linux/compiler.h that __compiletime_assert is a
> >> no-op when __OPTIMIZE__ is not defined.
> > Depending on optimizations for static assertions sounds problematic.
>
> (with my best Palpatine voice) It is unavoidable.
>
> Actually it's theoretically possible, but the compiler would have to do
> something akin to copying it's control flow graph et. al, run -O2-ish
> optimizations, perform the static assertions and then throw away the
> optimized control flow graph and emit code based upon the original.
In the context of the kernel, compiling with anything less than -O2 or
-Os is not an issue, we don't do it anyway. -O0 never worked, and
AFAICT we only build one file with -O1, but that is something we can do
away with as well:
from fs/reiserfs/Makefile:
# gcc -O2 (the kernel default) is overaggressive on ppc32 when many inline
# functions are used. This causes the compiler to advance the stack
# pointer out of the available stack space, corrupting kernel space,
# and causing a panic. Since this behavior only affects ppc32, this ifeq
# will work around it. If any other architecture displays this behavior,
# add it here.
ccflags-$(CONFIG_PPC32) := $(call cc-ifversion, -lt, 0400, -O1)
Arnd
