Re: Explicitly marking initializer overrides (was "Re: [PATCH] arm64/cache: silence -Woverride-init warnings")

From: Robin Murphy
Date: Fri Aug 09 2019 - 07:31:24 EST

On 09/08/2019 09:32, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 10:09:16AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 11:38:08AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 11:29:16PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
The commit 155433cb365e ("arm64: cache: Remove support for ASID-tagged
VIVT I-caches") introduced some compiation warnings from GCC (and
Clang) with -Winitializer-overrides),

arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c:38:26: warning: initialized field
overwritten [-Woverride-init]
arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c:38:26: note: (near initialization for
arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c:39:26: warning: initialized field
overwritten [-Woverride-init]
arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c:39:26: note: (near initialization for
arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c:40:27: warning: initialized field
overwritten [-Woverride-init]
arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c:40:27: note: (near initialization for

because it initializes icache_policy_str[0 ... 3] twice. Since
arm64 developers are keen to keep the style of initializing a static
array with a non-zero pattern first, just disable those warnings for
both GCC and Clang of this file.

Fixes: 155433cb365e ("arm64: cache: Remove support for ASID-tagged VIVT I-caches")
Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@xxxxxx>

This is _not_ a fix, and should not require backporting to stable trees.

What about all the other instances that we have in mainline?

I really don't think that we need to go down this road; we're just going
to end up adding this to every file that happens to include a header
using this scheme...

Please just turn this off by default for clang.

If we want to enable this, we need a mechanism to permit overridable
assignments as we use range initializers for.


For what it's worth, this is disabled by default for clang in the

It only becomes visible with clang at W=1 because that section doesn't
get applied. It becomes visible with GCC at W=1 because of -Wextra.

Thanks for clarifying that!

Do you know if there's any existing mechanism that we can use to silence
the warning on a per-assignment basis? Either to say that an assignment
can be overridden, or that the assignment is expected to override an
existing assignment?

If not, who would be able to look at adding a mechanism to clang for

If we could have some attribute or intrinsic that we could wrap like:

struct foo f = {
.bar __defaultval = <default>,
.bar = <newval>, // no warning
.bar = <anotherval>, // warning

... or:

struct foo f = {
.bar = <default>,
.bar __override = <newval>, // no warning
.bar = <anotherval>, // warning

... or:

.bar = OVERRIDE(<newval>), // no warning

... or:
OVERRIDE(.bar) = <newval>, // no warning

... then I think it would be possible to make use of the warning
effectively, as we could distinguish intentional overrides from
unintentional ones, and annotating assignments in this way doesn't seem
onerous to me.

Tangentially, there might also be value in some kind of "must be explicitly initialised" attribute that would warn if any element was not covered by (at least one) initialiser. For cases like our icache_policy_str one, where using the "default + overrides" pattern for the sake of one reserved entry is more about robustness against the array growing in future than simpler code today, that could arguably be a more appropriate option.