On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 07:09:06AM -0400, Tony Camuso wrote:
> 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.
If so, that's actually a bug in Sparse; anonymous unions should be
allowed without warning:
$ cat test.c
struct foo {
union {
int number;
int *pointer;
};
};
$ gcc -Wall -Wextra -c test.c -o /dev/null
$
They have a well-defined semantic meaning, and they're standardized in
C11, just not in C89 or C99.
- Josh Triplett
--
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
