On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Ben Pfaff <blp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Because sizeof(_Bool) is a little bit special compare to sizeof(long). In the case of long, all sizeof(long) * 8 bits are use in the actual value. But for the _Bool, only the 1 bit is used in the 8 bits size. In other words, the _Bool has a special case of the actual bit size is not a multiple of 8. Sparse has two hats, it is a C compiler front end, and more often it is used in the Linux kernel source sanitize checking. Depending on the sizeof _Bool sounds a little bit suspicious in the kernel. I would love to the heard your actual usage case of the sizeof(_Bool). Why do you care about this warning? Chris -- 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
