In article <20200606135850.ge14...@pony.stderr.spb.ru>, Valery Ushakov <u...@stderr.spb.ru> wrote: >On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 11:25:19 +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > >> On 06.06.2020 09:42, Simon Burge wrote: >> > "Kamil Rytarowski" wrote: >> > >> >> Module Name: src >> >> Committed By: kamil >> >> Date: Fri Jun 5 21:48:04 UTC 2020 >> >> >> >> Modified Files: >> >> >> >> src/sys/arch/x86/x86: cpu_rng.c >> >> >> >> Log Message: >> >> >> >> Change const unsigned to preprocessor define >> >> >> >> Fixes GCC -O0 build with the stack protector. >> > >> > Surely a gcc bug? This almost certainly needs an >> > /* XXX gcc stack protector -O0 bug */ comment and >> > possibly an entry in doc/HACKS as well otherwise >> > someone will come along later and de-uglify this >> > change. >> >> This is not really a GCC bug, as C const is not constexpr. It's >> also not the only place with such logic and such workaround. C++ >> fixed it and have real const. > >Doesn't -Wvla help catching these? Should we enable it?
I think it might catch too much... But we can try it... christos
