Rob and Josh, thank you for review. Attaching more patches. Am Mittwoch, den 05.09.2007, 13:36 -0700 schrieb Josh Triplett: > Thanks for reviewing these, Rob. Further comments below. > > > > From 98fae4f8d2d1f375a18aeaf1e0a0c71107fbeba8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Mathias Hasselmann <mathias.hasselmann@xxxxxx> > > > Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 22:26:47 +0200 > > > Subject: [PATCH] Introduce attribute structure for storing custom attributes in symbol nodes. > > Looks reasonable to me too; I wonder if this generalization could cover > some other things like contexts, particularly with appropriate > factored-out functions to combine attributes from symbols. Seems that I do not know Sparse well enough yet to understand which chance for refactoring you see. > > > Subject: [PATCH] c2xml: Add support for custom attributes and omit end position information when > > > equal to start position. Custom attributes are needed for GObject introspection > > > to express details like this: > > > > > This looks mostly fine, though I'm not sure about defining > > attribute_table inside c2xml. Either these are generally useful and so > > should be in (say) sparse.c, or they're specific to > > Gobject-introspection, and so there should be a way of providing them as > > input to c2xml, perhaps defined in an input xml document, and > > namespacing them in the output appropriately? Having definitions for GObject specific attributes within an external file seems reasonable for me: No need to patch sparse everytime we GNOME guys invent a new attribute for our code. But instead of using XML for that external definition I feel like using Sparse's builtin tokenizer. > At a minimum, Sparse should know about these attributes in order to > ignore them. In theory, Sparse should ignore any attributes it doesn't > know about, like GCC's -Wno-attributes, but that seems error-prone. > Alternatively, we could introduce some new builtin for testing for > available attributes; feature testing seems better than version testing, > and Sparse does develop new features over time, so that might help for > new Sparse features as well. That would allow something like > conditional compilation based on individual attributes: > #if defined(__CHECKER__) && __attribute_exists__(element_type) > #define element_type(x) __attribute__((element_type(x))) > #endif Agreed. This __attribute_exists__ builtin looks like a pretty idea. Guess we also should convince the gcc hackers to introduce it. > > > Subject: [PATCH] c2xml: Implement command line options: > > Just to clarify something: feel free to refactor Sparse's command-line > handling itself, which I think needs some work to make it usable by > anything other than the sparse backend. Attached there is a new variant of the patch, playing nice with Sparse's command-line parse. Concept is borrowed from glib's GOptionContext. Upon approval I'll modify Sparse's command line parser to use this extensible infrastructure. Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Hasselmann <mathias.hasselmann@xxxxxx> http://taschenorakel.de/
Attachment:
0001-parse.dtd-Fix-errors-in-definition-of-the-symbol-el.patch
Description: application/mbox
Attachment:
0002-c2xml-Output-argument-and-expansion-nodes-for-macro.patch
Description: application/mbox
Attachment:
0003-c2xml-Implement-support-for-command-line-options-b.patch
Description: application/mbox
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
