[PATCH] soc: sof: fix clang -Wformat warnings
When building with Clang we encounter these warnings: | sound/soc/sof/ipc3-topology.c:2343:4: error: format specifies type | 'unsigned char' but the argument has type 'int' [-Werror,-Wformat] | SOF_ABI_MAJOR, SOF_ABI_MINOR, SOF_ABI_PATCH); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~
Use correct format specifier `%d` since args are of type int.
Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/378 Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor nathan@kernel.org Suggested-by: Nathan Chancellor nathan@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Justin Stitt justinstitt@google.com --- Reported by Nathan here: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YtmrCJjQrSbv8Aj1@dev-arch.thelio-3990X/
sound/soc/sof/ipc3-topology.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/sof/ipc3-topology.c b/sound/soc/sof/ipc3-topology.c index b2cc046b9f60..65923e7a5976 100644 --- a/sound/soc/sof/ipc3-topology.c +++ b/sound/soc/sof/ipc3-topology.c @@ -2338,7 +2338,7 @@ static int sof_ipc3_parse_manifest(struct snd_soc_component *scomp, int index, }
dev_info(scomp->dev, - "Topology: ABI %d:%d:%d Kernel ABI %hhu:%hhu:%hhu\n", + "Topology: ABI %d:%d:%d Kernel ABI %d:%d:%d\n", man->priv.data[0], man->priv.data[1], man->priv.data[2], SOF_ABI_MAJOR, SOF_ABI_MINOR, SOF_ABI_PATCH);
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 02:12:18PM -0700, Justin Stitt wrote:
When building with Clang we encounter these warnings: | sound/soc/sof/ipc3-topology.c:2343:4: error: format specifies type | 'unsigned char' but the argument has type 'int' [-Werror,-Wformat] | SOF_ABI_MAJOR, SOF_ABI_MINOR, SOF_ABI_PATCH); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~
Use correct format specifier `%d` since args are of type int.
Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/378 Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor nathan@kernel.org Suggested-by: Nathan Chancellor nathan@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Justin Stitt justinstitt@google.com
Indeed, decimal integer literals with no suffix are of type 'int' when they can fit in an 'int'. In this case, there shouldn't be a bug since the values of these macros can fit in an 'unsigned char' (so no truncation) but it is still correct to use '%d' instead of '%hhu', which matches the stance of commit cbacb5ab0aa0 ("docs: printk-formats: Stop encouraging use of unnecessary %h[xudi] and %hh[xudi]").
This was introduced by commit 323aa1f093e6 ("ASoC: SOF: Add a new IPC op for parsing topology manifest"), not sure it warrants a fixes tag for the reason I outlined above, but it might be helpful for other reviewers.
Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor nathan@kernel.org
Reported by Nathan here: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YtmrCJjQrSbv8Aj1@dev-arch.thelio-3990X/
sound/soc/sof/ipc3-topology.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/sof/ipc3-topology.c b/sound/soc/sof/ipc3-topology.c index b2cc046b9f60..65923e7a5976 100644 --- a/sound/soc/sof/ipc3-topology.c +++ b/sound/soc/sof/ipc3-topology.c @@ -2338,7 +2338,7 @@ static int sof_ipc3_parse_manifest(struct snd_soc_component *scomp, int index, }
dev_info(scomp->dev,
"Topology: ABI %d:%d:%d Kernel ABI %hhu:%hhu:%hhu\n",
"Topology: ABI %d:%d:%d Kernel ABI %d:%d:%d\n",-- 2.37.1.359.gd136c6c3e2-goog
Hi all,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 02:12:18PM -0700, Justin Stitt wrote:
When building with Clang we encounter these warnings: | sound/soc/sof/ipc3-topology.c:2343:4: error: format specifies type | 'unsigned char' but the argument has type 'int' [-Werror,-Wformat] | SOF_ABI_MAJOR, SOF_ABI_MINOR, SOF_ABI_PATCH); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~
Use correct format specifier `%d` since args are of type int.
Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/378 Reported-by: Nathan Chancellor nathan@kernel.org Suggested-by: Nathan Chancellor nathan@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Justin Stitt justinstitt@google.com
Reported by Nathan here: https://lore.kernel.org/all/YtmrCJjQrSbv8Aj1@dev-arch.thelio-3990X/
sound/soc/sof/ipc3-topology.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/sound/soc/sof/ipc3-topology.c b/sound/soc/sof/ipc3-topology.c index b2cc046b9f60..65923e7a5976 100644 --- a/sound/soc/sof/ipc3-topology.c +++ b/sound/soc/sof/ipc3-topology.c @@ -2338,7 +2338,7 @@ static int sof_ipc3_parse_manifest(struct snd_soc_component *scomp, int index, }
dev_info(scomp->dev,
"Topology: ABI %d:%d:%d Kernel ABI %hhu:%hhu:%hhu\n",
"Topology: ABI %d:%d:%d Kernel ABI %d:%d:%d\n",-- 2.37.1.359.gd136c6c3e2-goog
Is it too late for this patch to make 6.0? We are trying to enable -Wformat for clang in 6.0 and this instance of that warning was introduced this development cycle by commit 323aa1f093e6 ("ASoC: SOF: Add a new IPC op for parsing topology manifest"). If I am tracking all my patches correctly, this is the only instance of -Wformat that does not have a patch applied to a maintainer's tree so it would be really unfortunate if we could not sure it on for -rc1.
We could probably route this via the Kbuild tree with an Ack along with the patch that enables -Wformat if it cannot go via Mark's or Takashi's ree.
Cheers, Nathan
On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 01:25:24PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
Is it too late for this patch to make 6.0? We are trying to enable -Wformat for clang in 6.0 and this instance of that warning was introduced this development cycle by commit 323aa1f093e6 ("ASoC: SOF: Add a new IPC op for parsing topology manifest"). If I am tracking all my patches correctly, this is the only instance of -Wformat that does not have a patch applied to a maintainer's tree so it would be really unfortunate if we could not sure it on for -rc1.
We could probably route this via the Kbuild tree with an Ack along with the patch that enables -Wformat if it cannot go via Mark's or Takashi's ree.
We have a couple of months to get fixes into the next release so it's not an emergency at this point. If you want people to see things promptly you really need to do things like send them with subject lines that look like something that might be relevant for them to review (generally, at least visually resemble how other commits in the area look). I don't know if I even opened this mail first time around because based on the subject it looks like something for drivers/soc not a subsystem I maintain. Given that none of the SOF people responded it's likely something similar applied there.
In any case, if you think something's been lost the content free pings either here or on IRC aren't that helpful - they're not directly actionable. It is generally more helpful to resend, that way people have the patch to hand and don't need to go looking for it.
participants (3)
-
Justin Stitt -
Mark Brown -
Nathan Chancellor