On 07/31/2015 07:46 PM, Christopher Li wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Tony Camuso <tcamuso@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I thought it would be less intrusive, since I don't know how useful
this would be to others.
If you prefer a switch, I will do that.
I agree that this should be run time behavior.
+
+#if defined NOWARN || defined NOERR
+ return token->next;
+#else
What is up with this change? It is not output warning or not.
It affect the parsing as well. If sparse can't bail out properly,
this should be a separate patch.
Chris
Hi, Chris.
I've since submitted a runtime patch (3/3 V3) with a switch as a
response to this patch, but it basically does the same thing here.
Consider the case where the source contains something like this...
struct foo {
union {
int number;
int *pointer;
};
};
There being no ident for the union within the struct, we get the warning,
"missing identifier in declaration" etc.
Code without the patch.
/* Just a type declaration? */
if (!ident) {
warning(token->pos, "missing identifier in declaration");
return expect(token, ';', "at the end of type declaration");
}
Regards,
Tony
--
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
