-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Al Viro wrote: [...] > I'll probably go for gcc-like behaviour in sparse for now, unless somebody > sees a good reason not to. At least that one is consistent and doesn't > bring the shitloads of fun questions about behaviour of arithmetic conversions, > etc. > > Comments? All I can really say to that is: ew. I like bitfields and use them frequently, particularly for flags and packing several small fields into a small space; luckily I've already been pretty anally retentive about declaring them explicitly as 'signed' or 'unsigned'. - From the compiler perspective, Principle of Least Surprise would suggest doing the consistent thing, which as you say is gcc-like. OTOH from the linter perspective I'd be *strongly* in favour of a warning if sparse sees a problematic declaration. Bitfields are an area where signedness suddenly becomes really important. (int i : 1, anyone?) Are you submitting a bug report to the standards people? - -- ┌─── ｄｇ＠ｃｏｗｌａｒｋ．ｃｏｍ ───── http://www.cowlark.com ───── │ │ "All power corrupts, but we need electricity." --- Diana Wynne Jones, │ _Archer's Goon_ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJwa7Zf9E0noFvlzgRAl6ZAKCb1Y9FNTkZRDQqvYH2URVZ7uw4uQCfeN8P 0Tif41kFR7FmUshV5PI7ogA= =QHru -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- 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
