On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 16:44 +0100, Derek M Jones wrote: > All, > > >>> The syntax permits: > >>> > >>> signed unsigned short long double int; > >> > >> Please, read 6.7.2(2). > > > > Semantic spoil sport. > > The point I did not mention before sending the email > was the extent to which Sparse needs to check constructs > that are constraint violations and thus assumed to be checked > by the compiler. > > Ok, it is possible to get weird looking stuff through sparse > without complaint, but is it worth spending time flagging it? > > Surely time should be concentrated on flagging suspicious constructs > that are valid C and not in correctly handling obscure corners > of the language. Ideally, I would like Sparse to provide a self-contained set of warnings, even those potentially redundant with a compiler. However, I agree that in general Sparse should give priority to issues that a compiler will not already flag. - Josh Triplett - 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
