On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 03:06:36PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > *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. ... or it could be done simpler, if we keep the current logics for Int_const_expr flag at parse time and add a 'const expression' one with rules as above. Anyway, I'm going to get some sleep before dealing with that crap. - 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
