Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 01:19:09AM +0200, Nicolai Stange wrote:
>> Initializers of static storage duration objects shall be constant
>> expressions [6.7.8(4)].
>>
>> Warn if that requirement is not met.
>>
>> Identify static storage duration objects by having either of
>> MOD_TOPLEVEL or MOD_STATIC set.
>>
>> Check an initializer's constness at the lowest possible subobject
>> level, i.e. at the level of the "assignment-expression" production
>> in [6.7.8].
>>
>> For compound objects, make handle_list_initializer() pass the
>> surrounding object's storage duration modifiers down to
>> handle_simple_initializer() at subobject initializer evaluation.
>
>
> This patch makes validation/{builtin_bswap,choose_expr}.c fail.
> Of course, it's directly related to the purpose of the patch but
> then the test should be adapted.
>
Yes, you are absolutely right. However, as mentioned in this RFC series'
cover letter, I decided to leave these two failers as is "for the
moment". Certainly this is anything but best practice and I can only
apologize for sending you half (well 97%) baken patches -- and promise
to never do it again...
--
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
