On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I was playing with sparse to see what it would accept, and I was
> actually surprised at how many "obviously wrong" constructs it
> accepted. Because sparse is supposed to warn about this, isn't it? Or
> is there a policy not to warn about things that gcc already rejects?
> If that were the case, I believe it would reduce the overall
> usefulness of sparse.
>
> (I say "obviously wrong" because I don't see how they can be valid,
> but I might of course be mistaken :-))
>
> Anyway, here are my test cases:
>
Here are some more that all produce errors or at least warnings with
gcc but pass silently with sparse:
==> extern-struct.c <==
/* Empty declaration */
extern struct t {
};
==> inline-struct.c <==
/* "inline" has no meaning here. */
inline struct t {
};
==> struct-struct.c <==
/* What does this mean? */
struct struct {
};
==> struct-typedef.c <==
/* Anonymous typedef or struct named "typedef"? */
struct typedef {
};
==> typedef-cast.c <==
/* Cast to typedef doesn't make sense. */
static int x = (typedef int) 0;
==> typedef-struct.c <==
/* Anonymous typedef? */
typedef struct {
};
Vegard
--
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
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
