On Sat, Dec 24, 2022 at 12:52:59PM +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 01:14:57AM +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 05:48:41PM -0700, Todd C. Miller wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 23:44:08 +0100, Patrick Wildt wrote: > > > > > > > clang complains when the function is declared with a fixed array size in > > > > a parameter while the prototype is unbounded, like this: > > > > > > > > /usr/src/sys/net/pf.c:4353:54: error: argument 'sns' of type 'struct > > > > pf_src_n > > > > ode *[4]' with mismatched bound [-Werror,-Warray-parameter] > > > > struct pf_rule_actions *act, struct pf_src_node *sns[PF_SN_MAX]) > > > > ^ > > > > /usr/src/sys/net/pf.c:203:28: note: previously declared as 'struct > > > > pf_src_nod > > > > e *[]' here > > > > struct pf_src_node *[]); > > > > ^ > > > > 1 error generated. > > > > > > > > We have a few of that, and was wondering what the better solution is. > > > > clang apparently accepts using * instead of []. The alternative would > > > > be to hardcode the size in the prototype as well. Here's a diff for > > > > a three files for the first version, as example. > > > > > > Using * instead of [] is the saner approach. Hard-coding the sizes > > > into the prototype seems like a bad idea, even if clang is now smart > > > enough to complain about a mismatch. > > > > > > - todd > > > > So, here's the full diff that allows me to compile arm64 GENERIC.MP, > > with radeondrm and amdgpu disabled. > > Right, sorry for derailing the thread with a different discussion. > Here's a diff only for the array/ptr changes. > > ok?
ok tb
