On 17 November 2014 16:35, Christopher Li <sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Christopher Li <sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I see. Thanks for the review. So the above case should not raise >> error. However, the following one should: >> >> static __pure void *(*f3_err) = non_pure_func; >> >> I got it the other way around. I will add that to the test case >> and send out the second round review. > > I send push out the v2 version of the test case at > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/devel/sparse/chrisl/sparse.git/log/?h=review-pure-attr2 > > I haven't include the fix part yet. Do you see any thing wrong with the test > case? > No, the test case looks correct now. You may want to add a conflicting definition, for completeness, as that is an important case for sparse to verify. So you could just add static void *pure1(void); // conflicting declaration at the bottom, and ensure it is flagged by sparse as an error after you make your changes. -- Ard. -- 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
