Al Viro wrote:
> [my apologies to the folks on Cc, original mails got the list address
> buggered in To:, thus the resend of the entire series just to the list]
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:54:25PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>> ... 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.
>
> From: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 02:28:10 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] fix the comma handling in integer constant expressions
>
> Treat it as normal binary operation, taint the value, check the taint.
> We can do other kind of value tainting with the same infrastructure
> as well...
>
> Review and testing would be welcome; AFAICS, it works, but...
Seems to work for me. Applied.
I did notice one thing:
$ ./sparse /dev/stdin <<<"int x; struct { unsigned int i:x; };"
/dev/stdin:1:32: error: bad constant expression
/dev/stdin:1:33: error: invalid named zero-width bitfield `i'
That seems like double-warning for the same error. Probably a pain to
suppress the second error, though.
- Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
