[PATCH 1/6] Bitfield without explicit sign should be a warning, not an error

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



The -Wdefault-bitfield-sign is supposed to control a warning, just like
other -W options.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Roskin <proski@xxxxxxx>
---

 parse.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/parse.c b/parse.c
index cb9f87a..ab3a096 100644
--- a/parse.c
+++ b/parse.c
@@ -1282,7 +1282,7 @@ static struct token *handle_bitfield(struct token *token, struct symbol *decl)
 		    !(bitfield_type->ctype.modifiers & MOD_EXPLICITLY_SIGNED) &&
 		    is_signed) {
 			// The sign of bitfields is unspecified by default.
-			sparse_error(token->pos, "dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned'");
+			warning(token->pos, "dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned'");
 		}
 	}
 	bitfield->bit_size = width;


-
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

[Index of Archives]     [Newbies FAQ]     [LKML]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Trinity Fuzzer Tool]

  Powered by Linux