Hi again,
On 01/23/2012 11:32 AM, Jan Pokorný wrote:
> Hm, I was talking about post-ops only, the example showed a failing pre-op
> ...both is a single case as evaluate_preop boils down to evaluate_postop.
>
> I went through evaluate.c again and I think these cases should be somehow
> unified (stating current state):
>
> 1. evaluate_postop:
> a. function: error ("bad argument type for ++/--")
> b. void*: nothing, but buggy evaluation (add/sub -1)
that "buggy evaluation" is a kind of regression that can be tracked down
to commit [1], which first started the "void != char" idea and which
missed that evaluate_postop function.
> 2. evaluate_ptr_add
> a. function: warning ("arithmetics on pointers to functions")
> b. void*: nothing, sizeof(void) implicitly considered as 1
>
> 3. evaluate_sizeof:
> a. function: warning ("expression using sizeof on a function")
> b. void: warning ("expression using sizeof(void)")
> (c. bool: warning ("expression using sizeof bool"))
>
> 4. evaluate_ptrsizeof:
> - ?
>
>
> The original patch makes 1b. an equivalent to 1a. The alternative
> is to handle 1b. in a similar way as 2b. Maybe both would deserve
> a warning.
The most moderate alternative is to take what what used in
evaluate_ptr_add into evaluate_postop.
However, the question whether to follow assumptions that GCC makes
emerges. I tried also clang -pedantic, I got:
warning: arithmetic on a pointer to void is a GNU extension
[-pedantic,-Wpointer-arith]
> Still, there is at least one inconsistency: 1a. vs 2a. (error vs warning).
[1] http://git.kernel.org/?p=devel/sparse/sparse.git;a=commit;h=405cd6e
--
Jan
--
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
