Re: [PATCH RFC 07/13] evaluate: check static storage duration objects' intializers' constness

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 11:28:08PM +0100, Nicolai Stange wrote:
>> 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".
>
> It's fine then.
> I just wanted to be sure that you was aware of it.
>
>> 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...
>
> Personally, I think that drafts are very fine.
> They're the basis on which we, developers, can exchange ideas.
> And your patches are far from drafts, they are already finely coocked.
>
> But just to be sure to avoid any misunderstanding:
> you know that I'm not the maintainer, just a reviewer. Right?

Yes, I know that:
  https://sparse.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page

Btw, this remembers me of the fact that Josh Triplett is still listed as
a maintainer in sparse.1

Either of {web,man}page is wrong about that. Or both are incomplete and
we have actually got two maintainers here?
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Newbies FAQ]     [LKML]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Trinity Fuzzer Tool]

  Powered by Linux