> > >>>>> the following sparse complaints: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h:471:42: warning: constant 0xffffffffffffffff is so big it is unsigned long > > >>>>> ./arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h:512:42: warning: constant 0xffffffffffffffff is so big it is unsigned long > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Sergey Matyukevich <geomatsi@xxxxxxxxx> > > >>>>> --- > > >>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h | 4 ++-- > > >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > >>>> > > >>>> I thought this was fixed in newer versions of sparse so that it treats > > >>>> AArch64 as 64-bit? [see sparse commit 49d56b6969d2f] > > >>> > > >>> I am using up-to-date sparse. However this warning still appears, > > >>> not sure why. Maybe sparse treats such constants as unsigned int ? > > >>> > > >>> Meanwhile it looks like I chose wrong type: it is enough to use UL > > >>> instead of ULL to make sparse happy. In fact warning is clear > > >>> about it. > > >> > > >> Ah yes, sorry. I misread the patch the first time around and thought you were > > >> changing a UL suffix to a ULL suffix. So actually, I think this is just a > > >> case of sparse getting confused about this constant because it's actually > > >> going to get parsed by the pre-processor, which says: > > >> > > >> | It [the preprocessor parsing #if] carries out all calculations in the > > >> | widest integer type known to the compiler; on most machines supported by > > >> | GCC this is 64 bits > > >> > > >> so I still think this is a false positive. Adding Luc in case he has any > > >> ideas. > > > > > > Well, I think the warning is 'correct' (and the message is quite > > > clear about the 'possible' problem) but probably not useful enough. > > > > yes, the warning is correct. I think the message is quite clear, so > > would be happy to hear any possible improvements! ;-) > > Oh, I was not talking about the message but, like Linus explained, that > since no bits are lost here (and sparse has another warning in case some > bits would be lost) and nothing is incorrect, the warning is not really > interesting. > > > (Also, correcting the source, in order to suppress these warnings, > > should take mere seconds - for each such warning, of course). > > Yes, sure, it was even the origin of the thread. > > > > In fact, some months ago, it was agreed that sparse will only issue > > > this warning when -Wpedantic is set but this flag is not yet handled. > > > > I have patches, but I have been waiting for the 'official repo' issue > > to get resolved. (If you remember, I was building on top of the current > > official repo and continually merging to the master branch of your > > github sparse.git - but I got bored of doing that!). > > Yes, I understand. This should be solved now. Hi, Could you please clarify what is your resolution regarding that warning. I pulled all the changes from sparse repository on kernel.org. However the same warning is still here when building modules with C=2 option. Regards, Sergey
