Re: [PATCH v2] declance: Fix 64-bit compilation warnings

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

On Mon, 7 Jul 2014, Grant Likely wrote:

> > > > I don't think %#p is valid so it
> > > > shouldn't have been set by #.
> > > 
> > >  Huh?  As recently as last Wednesday you pointed me at the specific commit 
> > > from Grant that made it valid (GCC format complaints aside).
> > 
> > Those gcc complaints are precisely the thing
> > that makes it invalid.
> 
> That's the most inane reason ever for saying something is invalid. "The
> tool doesn't recognise it, there for it is invalid?" Seriously?
> 
> Tools are just tools. They aren't the source of what is valid/invalid,
> they only report on what we as engineers have told them to do, because
> *we* define what should be valid/invalid.
> 
> If you've got a real reason that explains *why* the tool rejects that
> construct, then I'd be happy to hear it, but otherwise that argument
> makes no sense.

 GCC rejects it, because its `printf' format attribute expects format 
specifiers according to ISO C and its formatted input/output functions.  
The syntax of our `printk' is however different, not only for %#p, so I 
agree it's GCC that acts incompatibly and not our design being wrong.  I 
have therefore offered a solution (though not an implementation right now, 
sorry; I'm not even set up to start such development right away) to 
introduce a `linux_printk' format attribute to GCC that would match our 
requirements.

 FAOD I'm in favour to retaining `#' with %p, but then making it 
consistent across variants such as %pad vs %#pad.  This does not preclude 
or require adding `linux_printk' to GCC in the future.

  Maciej
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/