On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:00 PM Andi Kleen <a...@firstfloor.org> wrote: > > > > From: Andi Kleen <a...@linux.intel.com> > > > > This warning is very noisy in a default build with gcc 9. > > Move it into W=2 only. > > > > Cc: a...@arndb.de > > Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> > > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <a...@linux.intel.com> > > I think W=2 is too aggressive. On many architectures, this finds > real bugs and the false positives tend to be trivial to fix > (by removing the bogus __packed annotation), which improves > the generated code in the process. > > Moving it to W=1 for the moment is probably fine, but ideally > I think we should fix the kernel to behave according to the > C standard.
Lol... we're actively moving away from the C standard on many places. Why does the silly compiler think it is a problem to take the address of a member of a packed structure? That sounds like something that's perfectly fine and useful.
