On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 Just to confirm. If function declare as non pure then second time declare as pure, that is a conflict error. That is very different from other C attributes. C allow function declare attribute incrementally. If what you said is true, then pure attribute is actually acting like a modifier which don't fix not other non pure attribute. > at the bottom, and ensure it is flagged by sparse as an error after > you make your changes. I am curios how does GCC behave on this incremental declare of pure attribute. I just test it. GCC does not warn on the conflicting declare. GCC seems warn on some thing shouldn't warn on the test case: function "f2_ok" and "f5" shouldn't been warned. Strange. validation/pure-function.c:14:1: warning: '__pure__' attribute ignored [-Wattributes] static __attribute__((__pure__)) void*(*f2_ok)(void) = pure1; ^ validation/pure-function.c:15:1: warning: '__pure__' attribute ignored [-Wattributes] static __attribute__((__pure__)) void*(*f3_error)(void) = non_pure1; ^ validation/pure-function.c:29:1: warning: '__pure__' attribute ignored [-Wattributes] static __attribute__((__pure__)) int(*f5)(void) = pure2; ^ validation/pure-function.c:30:1: warning: '__pure__' attribute ignored [-Wattributes] static __attribute__((__pure__)) int(*f6_error)(void) = non_pure2; 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
