On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Christopher Li <sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Possible. If I comment out that check, I will get this error in the
> extern-inline.c
> test case:
>
> $ ./sparse validation/extern-inline.c validation/extern-inline.c
> validation/extern-inline.c:12:1: warning: multiple definitions for function 'g'
> validation/extern-inline.c:12:1: the previous one is here
Ok, I think that is just us being too anal. We should allow multiple
definitions for functions that are identical otherwise, but differ in
the "inline".
So I think that MOD_INLINE check in check_declaration() is wrong, and
makes us consider the definitions to be for different symbols. Yes,
that ignores the warning, but they really *aren't* different symbols.
So the correct thing to do is (I think) to remove that check, and then
make the parse_function_body() warning go away by accepting the fact
that we can have both an inline version and an out-of-line version of
the same function.
Hmm? I'm on my way out, so I'm not going to write that patch..
Linus
--
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
