Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] improve constexpr handling

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

 



On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 03:47:51PM +0100, Nicolai Stange wrote:
> This is the second attempt to clean up and improve sparse's handling
> of constant expressions. After I got some helpful reviews from
> Josh Triplett and Luc Van Oostenryck on my initial RFC series, I feel
> quite comfortable with this now and dropped the 'RFC' tag in favour of
> 'v2'.

Great.
 
> Quote from my initial 'RFC' cover letter regarding the structure of
> this series:
> 
>   This patch series is split into four parts:
>   - The first part deals with the refactorization of the current integer
>     constant expression handling and introduces some support for
>     recognizing arithmetic expressions. [1-5/13]
>   - The second part introduces support for recognizing address constants.
>     [6/13]
>   - The third part introduces a check for the constness of static storage
>     duration objects' initializers. [7/13]
>   - The last part stems from my tests with the kernel. It contains things
>     I missed in the first [9-10/13] and second [8,12/13] parts and
>     relaxes some of the constraints on constant expressions [11/13].
>     For the last patch [13/13], please see below. 
>   [...]
>   Although the patches of the fourth part, the fixup part, fit very well
>   into the first two categories, their associated testcases, if any,
>   depend on [7/13]. Thus, I dediced to keep the order as is.

Yes, it's fine. certainly so since you now added the -W flag.
I really consider your [13/13] as a totally separate patch
but it needs this series to see its effect.

> Quote end.
> 
> 
> The question from the initial 'RFC' series whether or not to relax the
> constexpr constraints, meaning that
> 
>   a difference of address constants may yield an integer constant
> 
> in order to make the kernel's ACPI_OFFSET macro happy, is still
> unaddressed. However, if it turns out that we actually want to do so,
> this single issue can be easily handled by some follow up patch.

Yes, indeed.


Luc
--
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