Morten Welinder wrote: >> While we're at it, below is somewhat ugly sparse patch for detecting >> "&& 0x" typos. > > Excellent idea, and there is something to be said about a low-footprint patch > like that. However, if you really want to capture this kind of bugs, you would > need to have some kind "not a boolean" or "bitfield" attribute that > can propagate. > For example, you would want > > if (foo && (BAR | BAZ)) ...; > > with BAR and BAZ being hex constants to produce the same warning. > > Incidentally, it is probably not just hex constants that deserve this treatment: > octal constants and variations of (1 << cst) are of the same nature. As well > as enums defined in such manners. Sparse has a notion of "integer constant expression" already, which it uses to validate expressions used for things like bitfield widths or array sizes. I could easily have Sparse warn on any use of an integer constant expression as an operand of || or &&. However, I can imagine that that might lead to some false positives when intentionally using an integer constant expression in a condition and expecting the compiler to optimize it out at compile time. - 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
