On Thursday 03 of September 2009 20:38:24 Christopher Li wrote: > I think it is cleaner to have one single place to look for the ctype of > an expression.We don't have to convert it to int type. I think most of the > sparse code can deal with enum type any way. I don't like the dual > personality of expressions. Two personalities are still not so many ... have you ever looked to the gcc code? :-) [...] > I don't see why it is hard to split. Can we just make the code which add > new options and issue new warnings to a separate patch? We shouldn't > need to reverse engineering the old behavior to do that. I didn't say hard, but actually not useful from my point of view. If it's easy for you to split my patch to the two pieces, you are welcome to have a go at that. We can still wait for opinion of the original authors. Perhaps they can bring some light to this problem. Kamil -- 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
