On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 23:05 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > And the current approach of hard-coding all the sizes doesn't? > > While I agree that I'd like a better approach (specifically, I want any Sparse > build to support any target arch), I don't yet have a solution for that, and > this patch does at least seem like an improvement over the current hardcoded > values. Another problem with this patch is that sparse is actually fed many "-m" options that it's supposed to ignore, such as "-march=nocona" on my x86_64. That's makes live painful for native builds too. So, adding strict verification was a bit premature. Ideally, sparse should know all "-m" options it's given. I was wrong that I only tested this change on userspace programs. So please drop the patch for now. However, this is not an attempt to stop the discussion, as it may be very useful. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin - 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
