| Message ID | 96033fbea8ab38a769c0ac9c23a217b4b5d32864.1610364304.git.mrezanin@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Fixing several GCC 11 warnings | expand |
On 1/11/21 12:30 PM, mrezanin@redhat.com wrote: > From: Miroslav Rezanina <mrezanin@redhat.com> > > There's prototype mismatch between tcg/tcg.c and tcg/aarch/tcg-target.c.inc: > > tcg.c: > > static void tcg_out_op(TCGContext *s, TCGOpcode opc, const TCGArg *args, > const int *const_args); > > tcg-target.c.inc: > > static void tcg_out_op(TCGContext *s, TCGOpcode opc, > const TCGArg args[TCG_MAX_OP_ARGS], > const int const_args[TCG_MAX_OP_ARGS]) > > This missmatch cause warnings on GCC 11: > > tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc:1855:37: error: argument 3 of type 'const TCGArg[16]' {aka 'const long unsigned int[16]'} with mismatched bound [-Werror=array-parameter=] > tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc:1856:34: error: argument 4 of type 'const int[16]' with mismatched bound [-Werror=array-parameter=] TIL. Interesting, compilers are getting smarter :) > Only architectures with this definition are aarch and sparc. Fixing both archs to use > proper argument type. > --- > tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc | 3 +-- > tcg/sparc/tcg-target.c.inc | 3 +-- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc b/tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc > index 26f71cb599..fe6bdbf721 100644 > --- a/tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc > +++ b/tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc > @@ -1852,8 +1852,7 @@ static void tcg_out_qemu_st(TCGContext *s, TCGReg data_reg, TCGReg addr_reg, > static tcg_insn_unit *tb_ret_addr; > > static void tcg_out_op(TCGContext *s, TCGOpcode opc, > - const TCGArg args[TCG_MAX_OP_ARGS], > - const int const_args[TCG_MAX_OP_ARGS]) > + const TCGArg *args, const int *const_args) Doing this way we loose information (that the array pointed has TCG_MAX_OP_ARGS elements). What about letting this prototype and fix the other uses? > { > /* 99% of the time, we can signal the use of extension registers > by looking to see if the opcode handles 64-bit data. */ > diff --git a/tcg/sparc/tcg-target.c.inc b/tcg/sparc/tcg-target.c.inc > index 6775bd30fc..976f0f05af 100644 > --- a/tcg/sparc/tcg-target.c.inc > +++ b/tcg/sparc/tcg-target.c.inc > @@ -1294,8 +1294,7 @@ static void tcg_out_qemu_st(TCGContext *s, TCGReg data, TCGReg addr, > } > > static void tcg_out_op(TCGContext *s, TCGOpcode opc, > - const TCGArg args[TCG_MAX_OP_ARGS], > - const int const_args[TCG_MAX_OP_ARGS]) > + const TCGArg *args, const int *const_args) > { > TCGArg a0, a1, a2; > int c, c2; >
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@redhat.com> > To: mrezanin@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org > Cc: "Richard Henderson" <richard.henderson@linaro.org>, "Eric Blake" <eblake@redhat.com> > Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 1:15:04 PM > Subject: Re: [RHEL7 qemu-kvm PATCH 3/3] Fix tcg_out_op argument mismatch warning > > On 1/11/21 12:30 PM, mrezanin@redhat.com wrote: > > From: Miroslav Rezanina <mrezanin@redhat.com> > > > > There's prototype mismatch between tcg/tcg.c and > > tcg/aarch/tcg-target.c.inc: > > > > tcg.c: > > > > static void tcg_out_op(TCGContext *s, TCGOpcode opc, const TCGArg > > *args, > > const int *const_args); > > > > tcg-target.c.inc: > > > > static void tcg_out_op(TCGContext *s, TCGOpcode opc, > > const TCGArg args[TCG_MAX_OP_ARGS], > > const int const_args[TCG_MAX_OP_ARGS]) > > > > This missmatch cause warnings on GCC 11: > > > > tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc:1855:37: error: argument 3 of type 'const > > TCGArg[16]' {aka 'const long unsigned int[16]'} with mismatched bound > > [-Werror=array-parameter=] > > tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc:1856:34: error: argument 4 of type 'const > > int[16]' with mismatched bound [-Werror=array-parameter=] > > TIL. Interesting, compilers are getting smarter :) > > > Only architectures with this definition are aarch and sparc. Fixing both > > archs to use > > proper argument type. > > --- > > tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc | 3 +-- > > tcg/sparc/tcg-target.c.inc | 3 +-- > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc b/tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc > > index 26f71cb599..fe6bdbf721 100644 > > --- a/tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc > > +++ b/tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc > > @@ -1852,8 +1852,7 @@ static void tcg_out_qemu_st(TCGContext *s, TCGReg > > data_reg, TCGReg addr_reg, > > static tcg_insn_unit *tb_ret_addr; > > > > static void tcg_out_op(TCGContext *s, TCGOpcode opc, > > - const TCGArg args[TCG_MAX_OP_ARGS], > > - const int const_args[TCG_MAX_OP_ARGS]) > > + const TCGArg *args, const int *const_args) > > Doing this way we loose information (that the array pointed has > TCG_MAX_OP_ARGS elements). What about letting this prototype and > fix the other uses? I'm not author of the code so I went with smaller change - forward definition in tcg.c and most tct-target.c.inc use this form. I would need someone more familiar with this part to clarify whether it's ok to go with opposite change. Mirek > > > { > > /* 99% of the time, we can signal the use of extension registers > > by looking to see if the opcode handles 64-bit data. */ > > diff --git a/tcg/sparc/tcg-target.c.inc b/tcg/sparc/tcg-target.c.inc > > index 6775bd30fc..976f0f05af 100644 > > --- a/tcg/sparc/tcg-target.c.inc > > +++ b/tcg/sparc/tcg-target.c.inc > > @@ -1294,8 +1294,7 @@ static void tcg_out_qemu_st(TCGContext *s, TCGReg > > data, TCGReg addr, > > } > > > > static void tcg_out_op(TCGContext *s, TCGOpcode opc, > > - const TCGArg args[TCG_MAX_OP_ARGS], > > - const int const_args[TCG_MAX_OP_ARGS]) > > + const TCGArg *args, const int *const_args) > > { > > TCGArg a0, a1, a2; > > int c, c2; > > > >
diff --git a/tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc b/tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc index 26f71cb599..fe6bdbf721 100644 --- a/tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc +++ b/tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc @@ -1852,8 +1852,7 @@ static void tcg_out_qemu_st(TCGContext *s, TCGReg data_reg, TCGReg addr_reg, static tcg_insn_unit *tb_ret_addr; static void tcg_out_op(TCGContext *s, TCGOpcode opc, - const TCGArg args[TCG_MAX_OP_ARGS], - const int const_args[TCG_MAX_OP_ARGS]) + const TCGArg *args, const int *const_args) { /* 99% of the time, we can signal the use of extension registers by looking to see if the opcode handles 64-bit data. */ diff --git a/tcg/sparc/tcg-target.c.inc b/tcg/sparc/tcg-target.c.inc index 6775bd30fc..976f0f05af 100644 --- a/tcg/sparc/tcg-target.c.inc +++ b/tcg/sparc/tcg-target.c.inc @@ -1294,8 +1294,7 @@ static void tcg_out_qemu_st(TCGContext *s, TCGReg data, TCGReg addr, } static void tcg_out_op(TCGContext *s, TCGOpcode opc, - const TCGArg args[TCG_MAX_OP_ARGS], - const int const_args[TCG_MAX_OP_ARGS]) + const TCGArg *args, const int *const_args) { TCGArg a0, a1, a2; int c, c2;
From: Miroslav Rezanina <mrezanin@redhat.com> There's prototype mismatch between tcg/tcg.c and tcg/aarch/tcg-target.c.inc: tcg.c: static void tcg_out_op(TCGContext *s, TCGOpcode opc, const TCGArg *args, const int *const_args); tcg-target.c.inc: static void tcg_out_op(TCGContext *s, TCGOpcode opc, const TCGArg args[TCG_MAX_OP_ARGS], const int const_args[TCG_MAX_OP_ARGS]) This missmatch cause warnings on GCC 11: tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc:1855:37: error: argument 3 of type 'const TCGArg[16]' {aka 'const long unsigned int[16]'} with mismatched bound [-Werror=array-parameter=] tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc:1856:34: error: argument 4 of type 'const int[16]' with mismatched bound [-Werror=array-parameter=] Only architectures with this definition are aarch and sparc. Fixing both archs to use proper argument type. --- tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc | 3 +-- tcg/sparc/tcg-target.c.inc | 3 +-- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)