[PATCH] ntoskrnl.exe: Make USD pointers volatile to silent a warning.

[Zebediah Figura]

On 3/29/22 13:24, Rémi Bernon wrote:
> On 3/29/22 20:21, Zebediah Figura wrote:
>> On 3/29/22 12:39, Rémi Bernon wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Rémi Bernon <rbernon at codeweavers.com>
>>> ---
>>>    dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/instr.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>>>    1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/instr.c b/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/instr.c
>>> index 8f1aa4d45a3..05976c38b27 100644
>>> --- a/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/instr.c
>>> +++ b/dlls/ntoskrnl.exe/instr.c
>>> @@ -497,8 +497,8 @@ WINE_DEFAULT_DEBUG_CHANNEL(int);
>>>    #define SIB_BASE( sib, rex )    (((sib) & 7) | (((rex) & REX_B) ? 8
>>> : 0))
>>>    /* keep in sync with dlls/ntdll/thread.c:thread_init */
>>> -static const BYTE *wine_user_shared_data = (BYTE *)0x7ffe0000;
>>> -static const BYTE *user_shared_data      = (BYTE *)0xfffff78000000000;
>>> +static const volatile BYTE *const volatile wine_user_shared_data =
>>> (BYTE *)0x7ffe0000;
>>> +static const volatile BYTE *const volatile user_shared_data      =
>>> (BYTE *)0xfffff78000000000;
>>
>> I might be misunderstanding something, but I don't think "static const
>> volatile" makes sense? I.e. the second "volatile" probably shouldn't be
>> there.
>>
> 
> 
> I think we had the discussion already last time I sent the patch, and
> this is the version we ended up upon.
> 
> The warning fix is actually about making the pointers themselves
> volatile, GCC 11 doesn't like us accessing a pointer to a fixed address,
> which it considers as an empty array.

Right, I forgot about that...

Could we maybe add a comment in the code to that effect as well?