tree a2551df5b481b5d0fdd4e06a6736969a6614cd61
parent c60d3b79423aab402085c30b33bfff5354a61d8b
author Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> 1546557983 -0800
committer Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 1546636425 -0800

build_bug.h: remove most of dummy BUILD_BUG_ON stubs for Sparse

The introduction of these dummy BUILD_BUG_ON stubs dates back to commmit
903c0c7cdc21 ("sparse: define dummy BUILD_BUG_ON definition for
sparse").

At that time, BUILD_BUG_ON() was implemented with the negative array
trick *and* the link-time trick, like this:

  extern int __build_bug_on_failed;
  #define BUILD_BUG_ON(condition)                                \
          do {                                                   \
                  ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2*!!(condition)]));     \
                  if (condition) __build_bug_on_failed = 1;      \
          } while(0)

Sparse is more strict about the negative array trick than GCC because
Sparse requires the array length to be really constant.

Here is the simple test code for the macro above:

  static const int x = 0;
  BUILD_BUG_ON(x);

GCC is absolutely fine with it (-Wvla was enabled only very recently),
but Sparse warns like this:

  error: bad constant expression
  error: cannot size expression

(If you are using a newer version of Sparse, you will see a different
warning message, "warning: Variable length array is used".)

Anyway, Sparse was producing many false positives, and noisier than it
should be at that time.

With the previous commit, the leftover negative array trick is gone.
Sparse is fine with the current BUILD_BUG_ON(), which is implemented by
using the 'error' attribute.

I am keeping the stub for BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO().  Otherwise, Sparse would
complain about the following code, which GCC is fine with:

  static const int x = 0;
  int y = BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(x);

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1542856462-18836-3-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Tested-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>