On 02/04/2019 18.00, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:11:01 +0000 > Daniel P. Berrangé <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The GCC 9 compiler complains about many places in s390 code >> that take the address of members of the 'struct SCHIB' which >> is marked packed: >> >> hw/vfio/ccw.c: In function ‘vfio_ccw_io_notifier_handler’: >> hw/vfio/ccw.c:133:15: warning: taking address of packed member of ‘struct >> SCHIB’ may result in an unaligned pointer value \ >> [-Waddress-of-packed-member] >> 133 | SCSW *s = &sch->curr_status.scsw; >> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> hw/vfio/ccw.c:134:15: warning: taking address of packed member of ‘struct >> SCHIB’ may result in an unaligned pointer value \ >> [-Waddress-of-packed-member] >> 134 | PMCW *p = &sch->curr_status.pmcw; >> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> ...snip many more... >> >> Almost all of these are just done for convenience to avoid >> typing out long variable/field names when referencing struct >> members. We can get most of this convenience by taking the >> address of the 'struct SCHIB' instead, avoiding triggering >> the compiler warnings. >> >> In a couple of places we copy via a local variable which is >> a technique already applied elsewhere in s390 code for this >> problem. >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <[email protected]> >> --- >> hw/vfio/ccw.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- >> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > I'm currently in the process of queuing this and the other three s390x > fixes, but I'm inclined to do so for 4.1 (it feels a bit late in the > cycle for 4.0.) > > Other opinions?
IMHO it would be nice to get rid of the compiler warnings for the release. Multiple people reviewed the patches, so I think it should still be fine to include them. Thomas
