Al Viro wrote:-
>
> Son of a... expand_comma() cannibalizes the node, should restore ->flags
> to 0 (same as other similar suckers).
>
> > struct c { unsigned int c1: 1 ? 2: a++; };
>
> Ditto for expand_conditional, but there we should preserve the original
> ->flags instead - might be non-zero and we ought to do that after
> expanding the taken branch...
>
> From: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:10:54 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] fix the missed cannibalizing simplifications
>
> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Now I think I only see one class of issues; the following is valid
C99 (I believe that's what you intend to follow) but being rejected:
struct a { int comma: 1 ? 2: (2, 3); };
It's invalid C90.
Neil.
-
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
