Re: [PATCH] bpf: force inc_active()/dec_active() to be inline functions

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023, at 20:13, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

>>> One difference between gcc and clang is that gcc tries to
>>> be smart about warnings by using information from inlining
>>> to produce better warnings, while clang never uses information
>>> across function boundaries for generated warnings, so it won't
>>> find this one, but also would ignore an unconditional use
>>> of the uninitialized variable.
>>>
>>> >> If we have to change the kernel, what about the change below?
>>> >
>>> > To workaround the compiler bug we can simply init flag=0 to silence
>>> > the warn, but even that is silly. Passing flag=0 into irqrestore is buggy.
>>>
>>> Maybe inc_active() could return the flags instead of modifying
>>> the stack variable? that would also result in slightly better
>>> code when it's not inlined.
>>
>> Which gcc are we talking about here that is so buggy?
>
> I think I only tried versions 8 through 13 for this one, but
> can check others as well.

I have a minimized test case at https://godbolt.org/z/hK4ev17fv
that shows the problem happening with all versions of gcc
(4.1 through 14.0) if I force the dec_active() function to be
inline and force inc_active() to be non-inline.

With clang, I only see the warning if I turn dec_active() into
a macro instead of an inline function. This is the expected
behavior in clang.

     Arnd