On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Christopher Li wrote: > > > > It's nice if a NULL type means "type has not been evaluated yet", and then > > using "&bad_ctype" to mean "type evaluated to crap". > > Good idea. Some of the code already doing that. Yeah. I started out leaving bad stuff as NULL originally, but over time, as I noticed SIGSEGV's, I mostly changed the ones that I ended up having trigger to &bad_ctype. Otherwise we either need to test for NULL all the time (and especially since NULL under _some_ circumstances is ok and means "not evaluated yet", that can be confusing), and having to pass up errors higher and higher up. I at some point considered having a "silent bad_ctype" - a way of saying "ok, the type here is bad, but I already warned about the thing that _caused_ it to be bad, so don't warn any more about any type clashes". But I don't think I ever did that, so now you often get two different warnings (first a warning about "no such symbol" or something and then a warning about "bad types to binary operation" or similar). Anyway, if somebody ever gets irritated about the duplicate warnings, I thought I'd mention that as a potential way to perhaps avoid havign things that already caused errors cause even more verbose errors up the chain.. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
