On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 10:35:46PM +0900, Neil Booth wrote:
> 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); };
*unprintable*
Yes, I see... OK, null pointer constants handling (next patch in the
queue) introduces is_zero_constant() (silent evaluation of integer
constant expression, with division by 0/too large shift/- on lowest
value of signed integer type leaving the branch as-is, so that later
expand would generate a proper error on it; then checking if we'd
reduced the sucker to EXPR_VALUE[0]). I'll pull it into a separate
patch, along with is_nonzero_constant(), and change rules for potential
ICE on parser stage to
maybe-ICE && y => maybe-ICE
maybe-ICE || y => maybe-ICE
maybe-ICE ? x : y => maybe-ICE if at least one of x and y is maybe-ICE
maybe-ICE ? : y => maybe-ICE
letting evaluate_expression() on such suckers use them if the first argument
turns out to be ICE after its evaluate_expression()...
It really stinks, especially since we can't say "oh, parent it known to
be non-ICE, no need to bother" - subexpression might be shared.
-
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
