On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 09:51:52AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 18.11.2021 09:33, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 01:17:53PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 04.11.2021 11:48, Andrew Cooper wrote: > >>> If your answer is "well actually, we didn't mean to say 'if a GSI is > >>> mapped' in the comment, and here's a different predicate which actually > >>> inspects the state of a dpci object for validity", then fine - that > >>> will shut the compiler up because you're no longer checking for the > >>> NULLness of a pointer to a sub-object of a non-NULL pointer, but that's > >>> a bugfix which needs backporting several releases too. > >>> > >>> The current logic is not correct, and does not become correct by trying > >>> pass blame to the compiler. > >> > >> I have yet to understand in which way you deem the current logic to not > >> be correct. I'm sorry for being dense. > >> > >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102967 is the GCC bug, but > >>> the result of it was them persuading me that the diagnostic was > >>> legitimate, even if currently expressed badly. They've agreed to fix > >>> how it is expressed, but I doubt you'll persuade them that the trigger > >>> for the diagnostic in the first place was wrong. > >> > >> Well, thanks for the pointer in any event. I've commented there as well. > > > > Did we get any resolution out of this? > > I don't think we did. I'm still struggling to understand Andrew's way > of thinking.
What about the GCC bug report? Ultimately we need GCC people to make the check less restrictive or we need a way to rework the code in a way that doesn't trigger it, either Andrew's proposal or something else. > > It would be good IMO if we could build out of the box with GCC 12 > > instead of having to backport fixes later on. > > I guess gcc12 is too far from getting released that there could be any > guarantee for no further issues to get exposed by that point. It has > also been common for us to backport fixes and workarounds when new > compiler versions appear. > > I could agree to being proactive if the change to make to our code was > uncontroversial. OK, but unless GCC changes their mind we are likely to have this conversation again in the future, so we might be just delaying the inevitable. Thanks, Roger.
