Hi!
On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 09:50:50AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 6:02 AM Nathan Chancellor
> <natechancel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > /* If we have an image attached to us, it overrides anything
> > * supplied by the loader. */
> > - if (_initrd_end > _initrd_start) {
> > + if (&_initrd_end > &_initrd_start) {
>
> Are you sure that fix is correct?
>
> extern char _initrd_start[];
> extern char _initrd_end[];
> extern char _esm_blob_start[];
> extern char _esm_blob_end[];
>
> Of course the result of their comparison is a constant, as the addresses
> are constant. If clangs warns about it, perhaps that warning should be moved
> to W=1?
>
> But adding "&" is not correct, according to C.
Why not?
6.5.3.2/3
The unary & operator yields the address of its operand. [...]
Otherwise, the result is a pointer to the object or function designated
by its operand.
This is the same as using the name of an array without anything else,
yes. It is a bit clearer if it would not be declared as array, perhaps,
but it is correct just fine like this.
Segher
