On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Alexey Zaytsev <alexey.zaytsev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I still don't buy the bytecode idea, but it seems that the macros are > not actually lost after being pre-processed, which was my main concern > against even thinking about dumping the sparse internal representation > into the generated sparse object files. Still wandering in the dark. Will > look closed when return. > I think the whole point of dumping the sparse output is dumping the linearized byte code and it can be load from a later time. If some information is missing from the current byte code, you can add annotate byte code instruction. e.g. the inlined call instruction is add for the reason to identify which code are inserted by he inline function call. You can certainly do that for macro if you really want. The sparse checker is not really using the macro right now. The sparse checker currently is running on the linearized byte code. What other internal representation do you need? Chris -- 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
