Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] kvm: testsuite: silence warnings on x86_64
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 06:21:56PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
Bernhard Kaindl wrote:
I did not test this patch as I did not find documentation on how to run the
test cases and I could not find a make target to run them from make.
make -C user test_cases
user/kvmctl user/test/x86/bootstrap user/test/x86/access.flat
(we should rename user - test)
are you interested on patches for that? or does something else need to be done
first?
IMHO will be also a good idea to add a target in the Makefile so that building
the tests will not be part of all and will be executed automatically when
invoked with make check as it is is done usually.
presume that at least to begin, running all *.flat tests could be a good
starting point for this target?
--- kvm-60/user/test/x86/access.c
+++ kvm-60/user/test/x86/access.c 2008/01/24 15:14:16
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
#include smp.h
#include printf.h
+#include string.h
#define true 1
#define false 0
@@ -569,7 +570,7 @@
int r;
printf(starting test\n\n);
-smp_init(ac_test_run);
+smp_init((void (*)(void))ac_test_run);
r = ac_test_run();
return r ? 0 : 1;
}
Better to add a wrapper that conforms to the expected signature, and
makes sure the return value of ac_test_run() is not lost.
this will require redefining smp_init as shown by :
--- a/user/test/x86/lib/smp.h
+++ b/user/test/x86/lib/smp.h
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ struct spinlock {
int v;
};
-void smp_init(void (*smp_main)(void));
+void smp_init(int (*smp_main)(void));
int cpu_count(void);
int smp_id(void);
and will require also fixing the smp.flat test to build againg and to return
a bool when executed (will send patches for doing both later if that is what
you want)
Haven't run access.flat on smp for a long while; the results should be
interesting after the page fault scaling work.
if you meant `kvmctl -s2` it doesn't seem to get pass the kvm device
initialization inside kvmctl for kvm-60.
Carlo
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/
___
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] kvm: testsuite: silence warnings on x86_64
Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote:
[I forgot to reply to the this:]
--- kvm-60/user/test/x86/access.c
+++ kvm-60/user/test/x86/access.c 2008/01/24 15:14:16
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
#include smp.h
#include printf.h
+#include string.h
#define true 1
#define false 0
@@ -569,7 +570,7 @@
int r;
printf(starting test\n\n);
-smp_init(ac_test_run);
+smp_init((void (*)(void))ac_test_run);
r = ac_test_run();
return r ? 0 : 1;
}
Better to add a wrapper that conforms to the expected signature, and
makes sure the return value of ac_test_run() is not lost.
this will require redefining smp_init as shown by :
--- a/user/test/x86/lib/smp.h
+++ b/user/test/x86/lib/smp.h
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ struct spinlock {
int v;
};
-void smp_init(void (*smp_main)(void));
+void smp_init(int (*smp_main)(void));
int cpu_count(void);
int smp_id(void);
and will require also fixing the smp.flat test to build againg and to return
a bool when executed (will send patches for doing both later if that is what
you want)
Yes please. smp.flat was only used during smp bringup, but it may be
useful later.
Haven't run access.flat on smp for a long while; the results should be
interesting after the page fault scaling work.
if you meant `kvmctl -s2` it doesn't seem to get pass the kvm device
initialization inside kvmctl for kvm-60.
Sigh, we should start automated runs of this thing.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/
___
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] kvm: testsuite: silence warnings on x86_64
Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote: On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 06:21:56PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: Bernhard Kaindl wrote: I did not test this patch as I did not find documentation on how to run the test cases and I could not find a make target to run them from make. make -C user test_cases user/kvmctl user/test/x86/bootstrap user/test/x86/access.flat (we should rename user - test) are you interested on patches for that? git patches (which have rename detection) please. IMHO will be also a good idea to add a target in the Makefile so that building the tests will not be part of all No, that means the build will break often. and will be executed automatically when invoked with make check as it is is done usually. Yes. presume that at least to begin, running all *.flat tests could be a good starting point for this target? Yes. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] kvm: testsuite: silence warnings on x86_64
Bernhard Kaindl wrote: This patch fixes user/test/x86/emulator.flat on kvm-59 with x86_64/E6850 and three other warnings: Applied, thanks. Please send separate patches for separate problems in the future. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
[kvm-devel] [PATCH] kvm: testsuite: silence warnings on x86_64
Hi,
please find the following trivial warning fix patch for
kvm-60/user/test/x86/*
below. Feel free to merge to upstream kvm. It's diffed against kvm-60.
The patch does not change things, just shuts up the warnings.
The deal here is that we check for warnings and are alerted of warnings which
include language like:
is used uninitialized in this function
-^^ (not may)
which indicate a true programming error and are prominently recognized.
Fixing the same warning message made me fix a terrible bug in libksba
(a library which deals with X.509 certificates, CMS data, and related data
which is used by
GnuPG) which surfaced with the use of the new gcc-4.3 compiler suite.
gcc-4.3 optimizes better and the probabitlity that uninitialized value
actually starts off with a non-zero value really increases with gcc-4.3.
I did not test this patch as I did not find documentation on how to run the
test cases and I could not find a make target to run them from make.
Bernhard
This patch fixes the following warnings on x86_64:
test/x86/access.c: In function 'ac_test_exec':
test/x86/access.c:541: warning: implicit declaration of function 'strcat'
test/x86/access.c: In function 'main':
test/x86/access.c:577: warning: passing argument 1 of 'smp_init' from
incompatible pointer type
test/x86/emulator.c: In function 'test_cmps':
test/x86/emulator.c:26: warning: unused variable 'i'
test/x86/emulator.c: In function 'test_push':
test/x86/emulator.c:115: warning: 'tmp' is used uninitialized in this function
test/x86/lib/printf.c: In function 'vsnprintf':
test/x86/lib/printf.c:95: warning: unused variable 'n'
Note: 'tmp' is only used in inline assembly, so the initialisation of it may be
done in a more elegant way, but just setting it to 0 should hopefully just
achive the same functional result as no initialisation (most of the time...).
Signed-off-by: Bernhard Kaindl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
access.c |8 +++-
emulator.c |3 +--
lib/printf.c |1 -
3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- kvm-60/user/test/x86/access.c
+++ kvm-60/user/test/x86/access.c 2008/01/24 15:14:16
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
#include smp.h
#include printf.h
+#include string.h
#define true 1
#define false 0
@@ -569,7 +570,7 @@
int r;
printf(starting test\n\n);
-smp_init(ac_test_run);
+smp_init((void (*)(void))ac_test_run);
r = ac_test_run();
return r ? 0 : 1;
}
--- kvm-60/user/test/x86/emulator.c
+++ kvm-60/user/test/x86/emulator.c 2008/01/24 15:08:16
@@ -23,7 +23,6 @@
unsigned char m3[1024];
void *rsi, *rdi;
long rcx, tmp;
- int i;
for (int i = 0; i 100; ++i)
m1[i] = m2[i] = m3[i] = i;
@@ -105,7 +104,7 @@
void test_push(void *mem)
{
- unsigned long tmp;
+ unsigned long tmp = 0;
unsigned long *stack_top = mem + 4096;
unsigned long *new_stack_top;
unsigned long memw = 0x123456789abcdeful;
--- kvm-60/user/test/x86/lib/printf.c
+++ kvm-60/user/test/x86/lib/printf.c 2008/01/24 15:10:35
@@ -92,7 +92,6 @@
int vsnprintf(char *buf, int size, const char *fmt, va_list va)
{
-int n;
pstream_t s;
s.buffer = buf;
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/
___
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] kvm: testsuite: silence warnings on x86_64
Bernhard Kaindl wrote:
I did not test this patch as I did not find documentation on how to run the
test cases and I could not find a make target to run them from make.
make -C user test_cases
user/kvmctl user/test/x86/bootstrap user/test/x86/access.flat
(we should rename user - test)
--- kvm-60/user/test/x86/access.c
+++ kvm-60/user/test/x86/access.c 2008/01/24 15:14:16
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
#include smp.h
#include printf.h
+#include string.h
#define true 1
#define false 0
@@ -569,7 +570,7 @@
int r;
printf(starting test\n\n);
-smp_init(ac_test_run);
+smp_init((void (*)(void))ac_test_run);
r = ac_test_run();
return r ? 0 : 1;
}
Better to add a wrapper that conforms to the expected signature, and
makes sure the return value of ac_test_run() is not lost.
Haven't run access.flat on smp for a long while; the results should be
interesting after the page fault scaling work.
= i;
@@ -105,7 +104,7 @@
void test_push(void *mem)
{
- unsigned long tmp;
+ unsigned long tmp = 0;
unsigned long *stack_top = mem + 4096;
unsigned long *new_stack_top;
unsigned long memw = 0x123456789abcdeful;
I'm needlessly pedantic, but the correct fix is to pass the constraint
=r(tmp) in the write section. This tells gcc the register is
clobbered (=) and not to pass any inputs in it ().
--
Any sufficiently difficult bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/
___
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] kvm: testsuite: silence warnings on x86_64
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Avi Kivity wrote:
make -C user test_cases
user/kvmctl user/test/x86/bootstrap user/test/x86/access.flat
Ah, thanks!
-smp_init(ac_test_run);
+smp_init((void (*)(void))ac_test_run);
Better to add a wrapper that conforms to the expected signature, and makes
sure the return value of ac_test_run() is not lost.
Haven't run access.flat on smp for a long while; the results should be
interesting after the page fault scaling work.
On my E6850, running 2.6.24-rc7-ish x86_64 kernel with kvm-59,
user/kvmctl -s2 user/test/x86/bootstrap user/test/x86x/(tried all).flat
just hangs without any output, kvmctl consuming 100% of one core.
I could try with kvm-60 at a later time.
Since that means that I can't test any fix I would be able to do along
your suggestion, I removed that hunk from the patch to keep the warning.
- unsigned long tmp;
+ unsigned long tmp = 0;
I'm needlessly pedantic, but the correct fix is to pass the constraint
=r(tmp) in the write section. This tells gcc the register is clobbered
(=) and not to pass any inputs in it ().
I ran the test case now, and interestingly, the testcase appeared indeed
broken here (kernel modules were still kvm-59), and the change above didn't
change that behaviour:
ser/kvmctl user/test/x86/bootstrap user/test/x86/emulator.flat
GUEST: paging enabled
GUEST: PASS: mov reg, r/m (1)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpsb (1)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpsw (1)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpll (1)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpsq (1)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpsb (2)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpsw (2)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpll (2)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpsq (2)
(command hung here, no further output)
Using =r(tmp) fixed this (gcc only accepted this after moving the tmp operand
to the input operands section, but then, only having =r(tmp) - (the '=' was
demanded
by gcc in the input section)only fixes it so far as this:
GUEST: paging enabled
GUEST: PASS: mov reg, r/m (1)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpsb (1)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpsw (1)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpll (1)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpsq (1)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpsb (2)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpsw (2)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpll (2)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpsq (2)
GUEST: PASS: push $imm8
GUEST: PASS: push %reg
GUEST: FAIL: push mem
GUEST: PASS: mov %cr8
GUEST:
GUEST: SUMMARY: 13 tests, 1 failures
and using =r(tmp) all the test work:
GUEST: paging enabled
GUEST: PASS: mov reg, r/m (1)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpsb (1)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpsw (1)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpll (1)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpsq (1)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpsb (2)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpsw (2)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpll (2)
GUEST: PASS: repe/cmpsq (2)
GUEST: PASS: push $imm8
GUEST: PASS: push %reg
GUEST: PASS: push mem
GUEST: PASS: mov %cr8
GUEST:
GUEST: SUMMARY: 13 tests, 0 failures
Please find the updated patch below,
Bernhard
This patch fixes user/test/x86/emulator.flat on kvm-59 with x86_64/E6850
and three other warnings:
test/x86/access.c: In function 'ac_test_exec':
test/x86/access.c:541: warning: implicit declaration of function 'strcat'
test/x86/emulator.c: In function 'test_cmps':
test/x86/emulator.c:26: warning: unused variable 'i'
test/x86/emulator.c: In function 'test_push':
test/x86/emulator.c:115: warning: 'tmp' is used uninitialized in this function
test/x86/lib/printf.c: In function 'vsnprintf':
test/x86/lib/printf.c:95: warning: unused variable 'n'
Signed-off-by: Bernhard Kaindl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- kvm-60/user/test/x86/access.c
+++ kvm-60/user/test/x86/access.c
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
#include smp.h
#include printf.h
+#include string.h
#define true 1
#define false 0
--- kvm-60/user/test/x86/emulator.c
+++ kvm-60/user/test/x86/emulator.c
@@ -23,7 +23,6 @@
unsigned char m3[1024];
void *rsi, *rdi;
long rcx, tmp;
- int i;
for (int i = 0; i 100; ++i)
m1[i] = m2[i] = m3[i] = i;
@@ -119,8 +118,8 @@
pushq (%[mem]) \n\t
mov %%rsp, %[new_stack_top] \n\t
mov %[tmp], %%rsp
-: [new_stack_top]=r(new_stack_top)
-: [tmp]r(tmp), [stack_top]r(stack_top),
+: [tmp]=r(tmp), [new_stack_top]=r(new_stack_top)
+: [stack_top]r(stack_top),
[reg]r(-17l), [mem]r(memw)
: memory);
--- kvm-60/user/test/x86/lib/printf.c
+++ kvm-60/user/test/x86/lib/printf.c 2008/01/24 15:10:35
@@ -92,7 +92,6 @@
int vsnprintf(char *buf, int size, const char *fmt, va_list va)
{
-int n;
pstream_t s;
s.buffer = buf;
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/
___
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
