On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > - if (match_idents(token, &restrict_ident, &__restrict_ident, NULL)) > + if (match_idents(token, &restrict_ident, &__restrict_ident, &__restrict___ident, NULL)) > token = abstract_array_static_declarator(token->next, &has_static); > token = parse_expression(token, &expr); > sym->array_size = expr; > diff --git a/validation/reserved.c b/validation/reserved.c > index caacd21..e5d7af8 100644 > --- a/validation/reserved.c > +++ b/validation/reserved.c > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ reserved.c:8:12: error: Trying to use reserved word '__const' as identifier > reserved.c:9:12: error: Trying to use reserved word '__const__' as identifier > reserved.c:10:12: error: Trying to use reserved word 'restrict' as identifier > reserved.c:11:12: error: Trying to use reserved word '__restrict' as identifier > +reserved.c:12:12: error: Trying to use reserved word '__restrict__' as identifier > reserved.c:13:12: error: Trying to use reserved word 'typedef' as identifier > reserved.c:14:12: error: Trying to use reserved word '__typeof' as identifier > reserved.c:15:12: error: Trying to use reserved word '__typeof__' as identifier Can you give more test case for __restrict__? Your patch seems suggest that you hit some code use "__restruct__" for abstract array declaration. Did that actually happen? I want to get some example. 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
