diff mbox

[edk2] ArmPlatformPkg: eliminate Juno gcc build warning

Message ID 20170620110008.24413-1-leif.lindholm@linaro.org
State Accepted
Commit 2f93c5077fc30e319342df750846b1607fe5571e
Headers show

Commit Message

Leif Lindholm June 20, 2017, 11 a.m. UTC
When building without LTO, gcc incorrectly resolves the hazards for
'PciRegBase’ when inlining, leading to "may be used uninitialized"
warnings (and hence build failure with -Werror).
Eliminate this warning by explicitly initializing the variable to 0.

Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
---

For those who have heard me mentioning this before but arguing against
upstreaming this patch: I only just tweaked that this warning doesn't
go away with more recent toolchains, but simply when switching to GCC5
build profile, and hence LTO. Build failure still reproducible with
gcc 6.3.1 and GCC49.

 ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

Comments

Ard Biesheuvel June 20, 2017, 11:28 a.m. UTC | #1
(+ Laszlo)

On 20 June 2017 at 13:00, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> wrote:
> When building without LTO, gcc incorrectly resolves the hazards for
> 'PciRegBase’ when inlining, leading to "may be used uninitialized"
> warnings (and hence build failure with -Werror).
> Eliminate this warning by explicitly initializing the variable to 0.
>
> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
> Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>

Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>

> ---
>
> For those who have heard me mentioning this before but arguing against
> upstreaming this patch: I only just tweaked that this warning doesn't
> go away with more recent toolchains, but simply when switching to GCC5
> build profile, and hence LTO. Build failure still reproducible with
> gcc 6.3.1 and GCC49.
>

/me annoyed

We keep hitting this with GCC, and I profoundly dislike having to add
redundant initialization sequences. Is there any other solution
possible, e.g., disable this warning for certain builds?

>  ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c b/ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c
> index da93eb5829..18491c7378 100644
> --- a/ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c
> +++ b/ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c
> @@ -343,6 +343,7 @@ ArmJunoSetNicMacAddress ()
>      return Status;
>    }
>
> +  PciRegBase = 0;
>    Status = InitPciDev (PciIo, &PciRegBase, &OldPciAttr);
>    if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
>      return Status;
> --
> 2.11.0
>
Ryan Harkin June 20, 2017, 11:44 a.m. UTC | #2
On 20 June 2017 at 12:28, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote:
> (+ Laszlo)
>
> On 20 June 2017 at 13:00, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> wrote:
>> When building without LTO, gcc incorrectly resolves the hazards for
>> 'PciRegBase’ when inlining, leading to "may be used uninitialized"
>> warnings (and hence build failure with -Werror).
>> Eliminate this warning by explicitly initializing the variable to 0.
>>
>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
>> Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
>
> Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>

Reviewed-by: Ryan Harkin <ryan.harkin@linaro.org>

>
>> ---
>>
>> For those who have heard me mentioning this before but arguing against
>> upstreaming this patch: I only just tweaked that this warning doesn't
>> go away with more recent toolchains, but simply when switching to GCC5
>> build profile, and hence LTO. Build failure still reproducible with
>> gcc 6.3.1 and GCC49.
>>
>
> /me annoyed
>
> We keep hitting this with GCC, and I profoundly dislike having to add
> redundant initialization sequences. Is there any other solution
> possible, e.g., disable this warning for certain builds?
>
>>  ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c | 1 +
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c b/ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c
>> index da93eb5829..18491c7378 100644
>> --- a/ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c
>> +++ b/ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c
>> @@ -343,6 +343,7 @@ ArmJunoSetNicMacAddress ()
>>      return Status;
>>    }
>>
>> +  PciRegBase = 0;
>>    Status = InitPciDev (PciIo, &PciRegBase, &OldPciAttr);
>>    if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
>>      return Status;
>> --
>> 2.11.0
>>
Leif Lindholm June 20, 2017, noon UTC | #3
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:28:38PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> (+ Laszlo)
> 
> On 20 June 2017 at 13:00, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> wrote:
> > When building without LTO, gcc incorrectly resolves the hazards for
> > 'PciRegBase’ when inlining, leading to "may be used uninitialized"
> > warnings (and hence build failure with -Werror).
> > Eliminate this warning by explicitly initializing the variable to 0.
> >
> > Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
> > Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>

Thanks!

> > ---
> >
> > For those who have heard me mentioning this before but arguing against
> > upstreaming this patch: I only just tweaked that this warning doesn't
> > go away with more recent toolchains, but simply when switching to GCC5
> > build profile, and hence LTO. Build failure still reproducible with
> > gcc 6.3.1 and GCC49.
> 
> /me annoyed

+1

> We keep hitting this with GCC, and I profoundly dislike having to add
> redundant initialization sequences. Is there any other solution
> possible, e.g., disable this warning for certain builds?

I would really like to not disable it.
When it gets it right, that's usually a pretty horrific bug caught.
And if we switch to LTO as the norm, I guess these will become less
noticeable over time.
But it does bug me too.

/
    Leif

> >  ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c b/ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c
> > index da93eb5829..18491c7378 100644
> > --- a/ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c
> > +++ b/ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c
> > @@ -343,6 +343,7 @@ ArmJunoSetNicMacAddress ()
> >      return Status;
> >    }
> >
> > +  PciRegBase = 0;
> >    Status = InitPciDev (PciIo, &PciRegBase, &OldPciAttr);
> >    if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> >      return Status;
> > --
> > 2.11.0
> >
Leif Lindholm June 20, 2017, 12:04 p.m. UTC | #4
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:44:09PM +0100, Ryan Harkin wrote:
> On 20 June 2017 at 12:28, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote:
> > (+ Laszlo)
> >
> > On 20 June 2017 at 13:00, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> When building without LTO, gcc incorrectly resolves the hazards for
> >> 'PciRegBase’ when inlining, leading to "may be used uninitialized"
> >> warnings (and hence build failure with -Werror).
> >> Eliminate this warning by explicitly initializing the variable to 0.
> >>
> >> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
> >> Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Ryan Harkin <ryan.harkin@linaro.org>

Thanks!

Pushed as 2f93c5077f.

> >
> >> ---
> >>
> >> For those who have heard me mentioning this before but arguing against
> >> upstreaming this patch: I only just tweaked that this warning doesn't
> >> go away with more recent toolchains, but simply when switching to GCC5
> >> build profile, and hence LTO. Build failure still reproducible with
> >> gcc 6.3.1 and GCC49.
> >>
> >
> > /me annoyed
> >
> > We keep hitting this with GCC, and I profoundly dislike having to add
> > redundant initialization sequences. Is there any other solution
> > possible, e.g., disable this warning for certain builds?
> >
> >>  ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c | 1 +
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c b/ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c
> >> index da93eb5829..18491c7378 100644
> >> --- a/ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c
> >> +++ b/ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c
> >> @@ -343,6 +343,7 @@ ArmJunoSetNicMacAddress ()
> >>      return Status;
> >>    }
> >>
> >> +  PciRegBase = 0;
> >>    Status = InitPciDev (PciIo, &PciRegBase, &OldPciAttr);
> >>    if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
> >>      return Status;
> >> --
> >> 2.11.0
> >>
Laszlo Ersek June 20, 2017, 3:44 p.m. UTC | #5
On 06/20/17 14:00, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:28:38PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> (+ Laszlo)
>>
>> On 20 June 2017 at 13:00, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> When building without LTO, gcc incorrectly resolves the hazards for
>>> 'PciRegBase’ when inlining, leading to "may be used uninitialized"
>>> warnings (and hence build failure with -Werror).
>>> Eliminate this warning by explicitly initializing the variable to 0.
>>>
>>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
>>> Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>>> ---
>>>
>>> For those who have heard me mentioning this before but arguing against
>>> upstreaming this patch: I only just tweaked that this warning doesn't
>>> go away with more recent toolchains, but simply when switching to GCC5
>>> build profile, and hence LTO. Build failure still reproducible with
>>> gcc 6.3.1 and GCC49.
>>
>> /me annoyed
> 
> +1
> 
>> We keep hitting this with GCC, and I profoundly dislike having to add
>> redundant initialization sequences. Is there any other solution
>> possible, e.g., disable this warning for certain builds?
> 
> I would really like to not disable it.
> When it gets it right, that's usually a pretty horrific bug caught.
> And if we switch to LTO as the norm, I guess these will become less
> noticeable over time.
> But it does bug me too.

Perhaps we should introduce two macros to "MdePkg/Include/Base.h",

#define UNUSED_POINTER NULL
#define UNUSED_INTEGER 0

These could be used to suppress such warnings, without the risk of
misleading programmers (as to the real necessity of the variable
assignment at hand).

Thanks
Laszlo
Ard Biesheuvel June 20, 2017, 7:52 p.m. UTC | #6
On 20 June 2017 at 17:44, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 06/20/17 14:00, Leif Lindholm wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:28:38PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> (+ Laszlo)
>>>
>>> On 20 June 2017 at 13:00, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> When building without LTO, gcc incorrectly resolves the hazards for
>>>> 'PciRegBase’ when inlining, leading to "may be used uninitialized"
>>>> warnings (and hence build failure with -Werror).
>>>> Eliminate this warning by explicitly initializing the variable to 0.
>>>>
>>>> Contributed-under: TianoCore Contribution Agreement 1.0
>>>> Signed-off-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> For those who have heard me mentioning this before but arguing against
>>>> upstreaming this patch: I only just tweaked that this warning doesn't
>>>> go away with more recent toolchains, but simply when switching to GCC5
>>>> build profile, and hence LTO. Build failure still reproducible with
>>>> gcc 6.3.1 and GCC49.
>>>
>>> /me annoyed
>>
>> +1
>>
>>> We keep hitting this with GCC, and I profoundly dislike having to add
>>> redundant initialization sequences. Is there any other solution
>>> possible, e.g., disable this warning for certain builds?
>>
>> I would really like to not disable it.
>> When it gets it right, that's usually a pretty horrific bug caught.
>> And if we switch to LTO as the norm, I guess these will become less
>> noticeable over time.
>> But it does bug me too.
>
> Perhaps we should introduce two macros to "MdePkg/Include/Base.h",
>
> #define UNUSED_POINTER NULL
> #define UNUSED_INTEGER 0
>
> These could be used to suppress such warnings, without the risk of
> misleading programmers (as to the real necessity of the variable
> assignment at hand).
>

Or perhaps

#ifdef __GNUC__
#define USED(var)  var = (typeof(var))0
#else
#define USED(var)
#endif
Laszlo Ersek June 20, 2017, 7:57 p.m. UTC | #7
On 06/20/17 21:52, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 20 June 2017 at 17:44, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:


>> Perhaps we should introduce two macros to "MdePkg/Include/Base.h",

>>

>> #define UNUSED_POINTER NULL

>> #define UNUSED_INTEGER 0

>>

>> These could be used to suppress such warnings, without the risk of

>> misleading programmers (as to the real necessity of the variable

>> assignment at hand).

>>

> 

> Or perhaps

> 

> #ifdef __GNUC__

> #define USED(var)  var = (typeof(var))0

> #else

> #define USED(var)

> #endif

> 


Sure, why not :)
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
Leif Lindholm June 20, 2017, 8:05 p.m. UTC | #8
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 09:52:20PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>>> For those who have heard me mentioning this before but arguing against

> >>>> upstreaming this patch: I only just tweaked that this warning doesn't

> >>>> go away with more recent toolchains, but simply when switching to GCC5

> >>>> build profile, and hence LTO. Build failure still reproducible with

> >>>> gcc 6.3.1 and GCC49.

> >>>

> >>> /me annoyed

> >>

> >> +1

> >>

> >>> We keep hitting this with GCC, and I profoundly dislike having to add

> >>> redundant initialization sequences. Is there any other solution

> >>> possible, e.g., disable this warning for certain builds?

> >>

> >> I would really like to not disable it.

> >> When it gets it right, that's usually a pretty horrific bug caught.

> >> And if we switch to LTO as the norm, I guess these will become less

> >> noticeable over time.

> >> But it does bug me too.

> >

> > Perhaps we should introduce two macros to "MdePkg/Include/Base.h",

> >

> > #define UNUSED_POINTER NULL

> > #define UNUSED_INTEGER 0

> >

> > These could be used to suppress such warnings, without the risk of

> > misleading programmers (as to the real necessity of the variable

> > assignment at hand).

> >

> 

> Or perhaps

> 

> #ifdef __GNUC__

> #define USED(var)  var = (typeof(var))0

> #else

> #define USED(var)

> #endif


So ... I prefer this version.

However, semantically, for the situation here (may be used before
initialized), "USED" does not make sense.
Could we have an identical "INITIALIZED" instead?

/
    Leif
_______________________________________________
edk2-devel mailing list
edk2-devel@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c b/ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c
index da93eb5829..18491c7378 100644
--- a/ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c
+++ b/ArmPlatformPkg/ArmJunoPkg/Drivers/ArmJunoDxe/ArmJunoDxe.c
@@ -343,6 +343,7 @@  ArmJunoSetNicMacAddress ()
     return Status;
   }
 
+  PciRegBase = 0;
   Status = InitPciDev (PciIo, &PciRegBase, &OldPciAttr);
   if (EFI_ERROR (Status)) {
     return Status;