[Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/5] Suppress some gcc warnings with -Wtype-limits

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 09:44:01AM +0000, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 09:06:10AM +0000, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >> On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 05:21:24PM +0000, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >> >> In the unsigned number space, the checks can be merged into one,
> >> >> assuming that BLKDBG_EVEN_MAX is less than INT_MAX. Alternatively we
> >> >> could have:
> >> >>  -    if (event < 0 || event >= BLKDBG_EVENT_MAX) {
> >> >>  +    if ((int)event < 0 || event >= BLKDBG_EVENT_MAX) {
> >> >>
> >> >> This would also implement the check that the writer of this code was
> >> >> trying to make.
> >> >> The important thing to note is however is that the check as it is now
> >> >> is not correct.
> >> >
> >> > I agree. But it seems to indicate a bigger problem.
> >> >
> >> > If we are trying to pass in a negative value, which is not one
> >> > of enum values, using BlkDebugEvent as type is just confusing,
> >> > we should just pass int instead.
> >>
> >> AFAICT it's only possible to use the values listed in event_names in
> >> blkdebug.c, other values are rejected. So the check should actually be
> >> an assert() or it could even be removed.
> >
> > Sounds good.
> >
> >> >> >> How about adding assert(OMAP_EMIFS_BASE == 0) and commenting out the
> >> >> >> check? Then if the value changes, the need to add the comparison back
> >> >> >> will be obvious.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This would work but it's weird.  The thing is it's currently a correct
> >> >> > code and the check may be useless but it's the optimiser's task to
> >> >> > remove it, not ours.  The compiler is not able to tell whether the
> >> >> > check makes sense or nott, because the compiler only has access to
> >> >> > preprocessed code.  So why should you let the compiler have anything
> >> >> > to say on it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Good point. I'll try to invent something better.
> >> >
> >> > Use #pragma to supress the warning? Maybe we could wrap this in a macro 
> >> > ..
> >>
> >> Those lines may also desynch silently with changes to OMAP_EMIFS_BASE.
> >>
> >> I think the assertion is still the best way, it ensures that something
> >> will happen if OMAP_EMIFS_BASE changes. We could for example remove
> >> OMAP_EMIFS_BASE entirely (it's only used for the check), but someone
> >> adding a new define could still forget to adjust the check anyway.
> >
> > We could replace it with a macro
> > #define OMAP_EMIFS_VALID(addr) ((target_phys_addr_t)addr < OMAP_EMIFF_BASE)
> > but all this does look artificial. And of course using type casts
> > is always scary ...
> >
> > Would it help to have some inline functions that do the range checking 
> > correctly?
> > We have a couple of range helpers in pci.h, these could be moved out
> > to range.h and we could add some more. As there act on u64 this will get
> > the type limits mostly automatically right.
> 
> That seems to be the best solution, I get no warnings with this:
> 
> diff --git a/hw/omap1.c b/hw/omap1.c
> index b00f870..8bf88e7 100644
> --- a/hw/omap1.c
> +++ b/hw/omap1.c
> @@ -3672,14 +3672,25 @@ static int omap_validate_emiff_addr(struct
> omap_mpu_state_s *s,
>      return addr >= OMAP_EMIFF_BASE && addr < OMAP_EMIFF_BASE + s->sdram_size;
>  }
> 
> +/* Get last byte of a range from offset + length.
> + * Undefined for ranges that wrap around 0. */
> +static inline uint64_t range_get_last(uint64_t offset, uint64_t len)
> +{
> +    return offset + len - 1;
> +}
> +
> +/* Check whether a given range covers a given byte. */
> +static inline int range_covers_byte(uint64_t offset, uint64_t len,
> +                                    uint64_t byte)
> +{
> +    return offset <= byte && byte <= range_get_last(offset, len);
> +}
> +
>  static int omap_validate_emifs_addr(struct omap_mpu_state_s *s,
>                  target_phys_addr_t addr)
>  {
> -    /* If OMAP_EMIFS_BASE ever becomes nonzero, adjust the check below
> -       to also include the lower bound check like
> -       addr >= OMAP_EMIFS_BASE && addr < OMAP_EMIFF_BASE */
> -    assert(OMAP_EMIFS_BASE == 0);
> -    return addr < OMAP_EMIFF_BASE;
> +    return range_covers_byte(OMAP_EMIFS_BASE,
> +                             OMAP_EMIFF_BASE - OMAP_EMIFS_BASE, addr);
>  }
> 
>  static int omap_validate_imif_addr(struct omap_mpu_state_s *s,
> 
> I'll add range.h and respin the patches.

BTW, maybe we want a variant of range_covers_byte that gets
first and after last byte values, but so far we could not
come up with good name for that function, and 1 after last
semantics might be confusing.

One small comment: these are currenly wrong if the range
wraps around to 0 - and there's a comment that says so there.
This was never a problem for pci, but it might be
if we are making them generic.

-- 
MST