On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 06:21:43PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Gaack... The fix is obvious (add e && into that condition and into
> e->type == EXPR_STRING a couple of lines below), but... I wonder
> if adding EXPR_BAD and using it to deal with such crap in parser
> would be better. Comments?
Anyway, brute-force patch follows. I still suspect that long-term
we will be better off with explicit EXPR_BAD nodes and guaranteed
things like "->unop of EXPR_PREOP is never NULL", but that can be
done separately - a lot of checks for NULL will be possible to remove.
diff --git a/evaluate.c b/evaluate.c
--- a/evaluate.c
+++ b/evaluate.c
@@ -2029,6 +2029,10 @@ static struct expression *check_designators(struct expression *e,
e->ctype = ctype = type;
ctype = type;
last = e;
+ if (!e->idx_expression) {
+ err = "invalid";
+ break;
+ }
e = e->idx_expression;
} else if (e->type == EXPR_IDENTIFIER) {
if (ctype->type != SYM_STRUCT && ctype->type != SYM_UNION) {
@@ -2042,6 +2046,10 @@ static struct expression *check_designators(struct expression *e,
}
e->field = e->ctype = ctype;
last = e;
+ if (!e->ident_expression) {
+ err = "invalid";
+ break;
+ }
e = e->ident_expression;
} else if (e->type == EXPR_POS) {
err = "internal front-end error: EXPR_POS in";
@@ -2203,9 +2211,9 @@ found:
static int is_string_literal(struct expression **v)
{
struct expression *e = *v;
- while (e->type == EXPR_PREOP && e->op == '(')
+ while (e && e->type == EXPR_PREOP && e->op == '(')
e = e->unop;
- if (e->type != EXPR_STRING)
+ if (!e || e->type != EXPR_STRING)
return 0;
if (e != *v && Wparen_string)
warning(e->pos,
@@ -2274,6 +2282,9 @@ static int handle_simple_initializer(struct expression **ep, int nested,
struct expression *e = *ep, *p;
struct symbol *type;
+ if (!e)
+ return 0;
+
/* scalar */
if (!(class & TYPE_COMPOUND)) {
e = handle_scalar(e, nested);
-
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
