On Sat, May 07, 2011 at 01:37:04PM -0700, Christopher Li wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Ben Pfaff <blp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Without this commit, sizeof(_Bool) provokes an error with "cannot size > > expression" because _Bool is a 1-bit type and thus not a multiple of a full > > byte in size. ?But sizeof(_Bool) is valid C that should evaluate to 1, so > > this commit fixes the problem and adds a regression test. > > The sizeof _Bool is implementation define. Gcc make sizeof(_Bool) as 1. > I modify your patch to issue an warning. Applied and pushed. > > The incremental change follows. Please check that works for you or not. Thank you for applying my patch. It does work for me, in the sense that I get a warning instead of an error now, but I'm not so happy to get any diagnostic at all. Is there some reason why sizeof(_Bool) warrants a warning when, say, sizeof(long) does not? After all, both sizes are implementation defined. Thanks, Ben. -- 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
