Hi! On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 03:26:36PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > I noticed in that report and > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202201190702.XNSXrMTK-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ > that gcc-9 was used. I wonder if %= has been fixed in gcc-10+? Have > there been other reports with gcc-10+ for my patch? None of the %= code (which is trivial) has been changed since 1992. > If this is fixed in gcc-10, then we can probably add a comment with a > FIXME link to the issue or commit to replace __COUNTER__ with %= one > day. If not, then we can probably come up with a reduced test case > for the GCC devs to take a look at, then add the FIXME comment to > kernel sources. Please open a PR? > I'm more confident that we can remove the `volatile` keyword (I was > thinking about adding a new diagnostic to clang to warn that volatile > is redundate+implied for asm goto or inline asm that doesn't have > outputs) though that's not the problem here and will probably generate > some kernel wide cleanup before we could enable such a flag. Its main value is that it would discourage users from thinking volatile is magic. Seriously worth some pain! > Perhaps > there are known compiler versions that still require the keyword for > those cases for some reason. It was removed from compiler-gcc.h in 3347acc6fcd4 (which changed the minimum required GCC version to GCC 5). Segher
