Hello Tom,
On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:28:53 -0500, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:03:53AM +0100, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> > Hello Jeroen,
> >
> > Am 30.11.2015 um 10:20 schrieb Jeroen Hofstee:
> > >Hello Heiko,
> > >
> > >On 30-11-15 08:47, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> > >>compiling U-Boot for openrd_base_defconfig with
> > >>gcc 5.x shows the following warning:
> > >>
> > >> CC fs/ubifs/super.o
> > >>In file included from fs/ubifs/ubifs.h:35:0,
> > >> from fs/ubifs/super.c:37:
> > >>fs/ubifs/super.c: In function 'atomic_inc':
> > >>./arch/arm/include/asm/atomic.h:55:2: warning: 'flags' is used
> > >>uninitialized in this function
> > >>[-Wuninitialized]
> > >> local_irq_save(flags);
> > >> ^
> > >>fs/ubifs/super.c: In function 'atomic_dec':
> > >>./arch/arm/include/asm/atomic.h:64:2: warning: 'flags' is used
> > >>uninitialized in this function
> > >>[-Wuninitialized]
> > >> local_irq_save(flags);
> > >> ^
> > >> CC fs/ubifs/sb.o
> > >>[...]
> > >> CC fs/ubifs/lpt.o
> > >>In file included from include/linux/bitops.h:123:0,
> > >> from include/common.h:20,
> > >> from include/ubi_uboot.h:17,
> > >> from fs/ubifs/ubifs.h:37,
> > >> from fs/ubifs/lpt.c:35:
> > >>fs/ubifs/lpt.c: In function 'test_and_set_bit':
> > >>./arch/arm/include/asm/bitops.h:57:2: warning: 'flags' is used
> > >>uninitialized in this function
> > >>[-Wuninitialized]
> > >> local_irq_save(flags);
> > >> ^
> > >> CC fs/ubifs/lpt_commit.o
> > >>In file included from include/linux/bitops.h:123:0,
> > >> from include/common.h:20,
> > >> from include/ubi_uboot.h:17,
> > >> from fs/ubifs/ubifs.h:37,
> > >> from fs/ubifs/lpt_commit.c:26:
> > >>fs/ubifs/lpt_commit.c: In function 'test_and_set_bit':
> > >>./arch/arm/include/asm/bitops.h:57:2: warning: 'flags' is used
> > >>uninitialized in this function
> > >>[-Wuninitialized]
> > >> local_irq_save(flags);
> > >> ^
> > >> CC fs/ubifs/scan.o
> > >> CC fs/ubifs/lprops.o
> > >> CC fs/ubifs/tnc.o
> > >>In file included from include/linux/bitops.h:123:0,
> > >> from include/common.h:20,
> > >> from include/ubi_uboot.h:17,
> > >> from fs/ubifs/ubifs.h:37,
> > >> from fs/ubifs/tnc.c:30:
> > >>fs/ubifs/tnc.c: In function 'test_and_set_bit':
> > >>./arch/arm/include/asm/bitops.h:57:2: warning: 'flags' is used
> > >>uninitialized in this function
> > >>[-Wuninitialized]
> > >> local_irq_save(flags);
> > >> ^
> > >> CC fs/ubifs/tnc_misc.o
> > >>
> > >>Fix it.
> > >>
> > >>Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de>
> > >>---
> > >>
> > >> arch/arm/include/asm/atomic.h | 14 +++++++-------
> > >> arch/arm/include/asm/bitops.h | 4 ++--
> > >> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >>diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/atomic.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/atomic.h
> > >>index 34c07fe..9b79506 100644
> > >>--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/atomic.h
> > >>+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/atomic.h
> > >>@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ typedef struct { volatile int counter; } atomic_t;
> > >> static inline void atomic_add(int i, volatile atomic_t *v)
> > >> {
> > >>- unsigned long flags;
> > >>+ unsigned long flags = 0;
> > >> local_irq_save(flags);
> > >> v->counter += i;
> > >>@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static inline void atomic_add(int i, volatile atomic_t
> > >>*v)
> > >
> > >Since flags is an "out" argument, something else must be wrong.
> > >There should be no need to initialize it, since local_irq_save should
> > >do that afaik.
> >
> > yes, you are right, it should be, but gcc 5.x seems to have problems
> > with it ... compiled code size for the openrd_base config is same with
> > my patch ...
> >
> > Hmm... for the openrd_base compile local_irq_save() is used from:
> > arch/arm/thumb1/include/asm/proc-armv/system.h
> >
> > with:
> > static inline void local_irq_save(
> > unsigned long flags __attribute__((unused)))
> > {
> > __asm__ __volatile__ ("" : : : "memory");
> > }
> >
> > flasg marked as unused ... seems correct to me, but I have
> > no idea, why gcc 5.x prints a warning ... any ideas?
>
> Well, gcc does get more vigerous in its checking now and yeah, it feels
> like it's flagging false positives. In this case I think the answer is
> that we need to nop out the various calls a bit harder on ARM. Glancing
> at the kernel, I think for thumb1 we should just do what we do for
> non-thumb, or translate that into thumb1 only code.
Not sure I'm following what you mean, both about nop-ing out and about
thumb-1. Can you clarify?
> Tom
Amicalement,
--
Albert.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
