> On Jul 12, 2019, at 8:50 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote:
>
> From: Qian Cai <c...@lca.pw>
> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 20:27:09 -0400
>
>> Actually, GCC would consider it a const with -O2 optimized level because it
>> found that it was never modified and it does not understand it is a module
>> parameter. Considering the following code.
>>
>> # cat const.c
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> static int a = 1;
>>
>> int main(void)
>> {
>> if (__builtin_constant_p(a))
>> printf("a is a const.\n");
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> # gcc -O2 const.c -o const
>
> That's not a complete test case, and with a proper test case that
> shows the externalization of the address of &a done by the module
> parameter macros, gcc should not make this optimization or we should
> define the module parameter macros in a way that makes this properly
> clear to the compiler.
>
> It makes no sense to hack around this locally in drivers and other
> modules.
If you see the warning in the original patch,
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/1562959401-19815-1-git-send-email-...@lca.pw/
GCC definitely optimize rx_frag_size to be a constant while I just confirmed
clang
-O2 does not. The problem is that I have no clue about how to let GCC not to
optimize a module parameter.
Though, I have added a few people who might know more of compilers than myself.
