On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 21:08 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 12:35:53PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > OK, that seems inconsistent with what you said before. You said that > > T __attribute__((foo)) *v; > > ... in gcc. > > > gives you a foo-pointer-to-T. So shouldn't > > int __attribute__((noderef)) *v; > > give you a noderef-pointer-to-int? > > ... if we followed gcc rules. Ah, OK. > > However, noderef seems like a property of a pointer, hence why I > > proposed the example I did. A warning should occur when you do > > *(<noderef T *>v) to get a T, not when you do *(<* noderef T>v) to get a > > noderef T. > > Nope. __noderef is a property of object being pointed to. Again, > consider &p->x. It should not be int *. And it should not be > an error. We want it to be int __noderef *. > > Semantics of noderef is simple: you should not access or modify the value > of noderef object. That's all. int __noderef * is an absolutely normal > pointer to such object. Think of __noderef as of a stronger variant of const. OK. It hadn't occurred to me that "noderef int x" could have any useful meaning on its own, but you've given a clear explanation of why it does, which makes it meaningful to apply noderef to the pointer target rather than the pointer. Thanks. - 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
