On Wednesday 10 of March 2010 21:27:21 Pavel Roskin wrote: > That makes sense for certain kinds of software, where crash is too > costly, but in case of sparse, I'd rather see it crash than ignore a > condition that may indicate an error elsewhere (perhaps both in sparse > and in the code it checks). > > I thing using assert() would be a better approach. It's already used in > sparse. > > I checked the whole kernel using assert in place of the NULL checks, and > there have been no crashes. I completely agree with that. Let's give some time to sparse developers to respond. If nobody objects, I'll change it to asserts. > Maybe you could add a test case for the first patch? What warnings does > it remove? What is "="? Is it assignment or initialization or both? Both of them. Maybe worth to add a test-case for the initialization to make it more obvious... > How about comparisons? Definitely not. That was the main goal of the 0001-Wenum-to-int patch. It was really noisy since enum values are first implicitly casted to ints and then compared. So there was no way to type-safely compare two enums without producing 6 lines of warnings. > A better description would be nice. Sure thing. I didn't realize it was ambiguous. Thank you for the review! 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
