On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 08:32:26AM +0900, Neil Booth wrote:
> Al Viro wrote:-
>
> > Hopefully correct handling of integer constant expressions. Please, review.
>
> Am I invoking sparse wrongly? ./sparse -W -Wall doesn't diagnose
> the following TU, for example.
>
> extern int a;
> extern int as1[(a = 2)];
sparse simply doesn't check that. We don't have anything resembling
support of VLA. Note that check for integer constant expression
has nothing to do with that;
int x[(int)(0.6 + 0.6)];
is valid (if stupid). And yes, footnote in 6.6 contradicts 6.7.5.2(1);
too bad...
We certainly need to do checks on array sizes; however, that part
("if it has static storage duration, it should not be a VLA") is minor.
And then there are gccisms:
size_t foo(int n)
{
struct {
int a[n];
char b;
} x;
return offsetof(typeof(x), b);
}
Yes, it's eaten up just fine. And yes, such structures are silently
accepted even with -pedantic -std=c99, which is a bug. Sigh...
We'll need to tackle VLAs at some point, but it certainly won't be fun ;-/
-
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
