On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hmm... I'd just added test printf to the handle_param() and see if I
> print *next, it is either --param or --param=*. So, using return (next +
> 2) helps, otherwise we end up with the same situation as before patch.
The return value from handle_switch() is a bit tricky. It is actually points to
the current args which about to be expired.
Take a look at this code which invoke the handle_switch().
for (;;) {
char *arg = *++args; <---------------- notice the ++
before the fetch
if (!arg)
break;
if (arg[0] == '-' && arg[1]) {
args = handle_switch(arg+1, args); <-------- args return here.
continue;
}
add_ptr_list_notag(filelist, arg);
}
>
> What did I miss?
So the caller loop will perform 1 pointer advance before fetch.
Your code can advance 2 pointer, so that is total 3 pointer advance.
>
> Which was explicitly mentioned in the commit message.
Sorry about that, I jump to the code first. I later notice that in
the commit message as well.
Any way, the change I push should fix all that.
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
