On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 11:15 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 08:06:23PM +0100, Kamil Dudka wrote: > > On Tuesday 09 of March 2010 19:35:19 Pavel Roskin wrote: > > > I removed the outside conditional, and sparse would still crash on this: > > > > > > crypto_has_alg(alg, type, mask ?: CRYPTO_ALG_TYPE_MASK); > > > > > > but not on this: > > > > > > crypto_has_alg(alg, type, mask ? mask: CRYPTO_ALG_TYPE_MASK); > > > > > > Apparently, the "?:" notation is confusing sparse now. > > > > To be frank, I've never seen that notation before. From what I understand, > > the variants above should be equivalent with each other, right? > > Yes, except that the first variant would not evaluate "mask" twice, even > if it consisted of an expression with side effects. See > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Conditionals.html . > > (When I go to look up something in the GCC manual, more often than not I > end up in Chapter 6, "Extensions to the C Language Family". :) ) Ironically, the fix for :? may benefit from that operator: do_warn_for_enum_conversions(expr->cond_true ?: expr->conditional, type); do_warn_for_enum_conversions(expr->cond_false ?: expr->conditional, type); At least I was able to run sparse on the whole kernel (wireless-testing, which is based on 2.6.34-rc1) without crashing or reporting anything strange. Actually, omitting the false conditional appears to be invalid. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin -- 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
