On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 02:13 +0200, Damien Lespiau wrote: > > Will review in more detail later, but at first glance this looks quite > > good, and very capable. > > I rebased the series against current HEAD to make testing easier. Thanks. > > Two minor things that jump out at me: > > * The need to specify the command line as "../sparse args $file" > > seems somewhat inelegant. > solved: no path in check-command now. Excellent. > > Also, allowing an > > alternate option "check-options" that just specifies sparse > > flags seems useful, and the default command could do something > > like "sparse $options $file"; that way, you can just say > > "check-options: -E", or "check-options: -Wthingy". > Humm, not sure if it's _that_ much useful to have > check-options: -E -Wthingy > instead of > check-command: sparse -E -Wthingy $file > for some reason I find the later less confusing, a matter of taste I guess. I don't mind going with the latter for now and considering the former for a later patch. > > * The need to prefix every line of output, rather than delimiting > > the start and end of the output, seems painful with large > > amounts of output. > Agreed. that's why ./test-suite format helps building such tags Yes, but I still prefer the delimited format for readability. > However I still run into a behavior that I cannot explain: > > validation$ echo $SHELL > /bin/bash > ---------- > validation$ ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor19.c > > preprocessor/preprocessor19.c:4:9: warning: preprocessor token A redefined > preprocessor/preprocessor19.c:3:9: this was the original definition > y > ---------- > validation$ ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor19.c 2> o 1> o && cat o > > y > processor/preprocessor19.c:4:9: warning: preprocessor token A redefined > preprocessor/preprocessor19.c:3:9: this was the original definition > ---------- > validation$ ../sparse -E preprocessor/preprocessor19.c &> o && cat o > preprocessor/preprocessor19.c:4:9: warning: preprocessor token A redefined > preprocessor/preprocessor19.c:3:9: this was the original definition > > y > > If you look carefully the 2> 1> redirections have eaten "pre" of the first > "preprocessor". Using &> show a more suitable behavior but it seems > that &> is not supported by every Bourne shell (for instance dash (the > default /bin/sh of Ubuntu 7.04 does not support &>) Any idea ? You can't redirect two things independently to the same file; that will open the file twice, and the writes will conflict, giving exactly the result you saw. > o 2>&1 should work; it has exactly the same effect as &> . - 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
