Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] expression: examine constness of binops and alike at evaluation only

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

 



On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 03:52:14PM +0100, Nicolai Stange wrote:
> @@ -1001,11 +996,9 @@ static struct symbol *evaluate_compare(struct expression *expr)
>  	struct symbol *ctype;
>  	const char *typediff;
>  
> -	if (expr->flags) {
> -		if (!(expr->left->flags & expr->right->flags &
> -				EXPR_FLAG_INT_CONST_EXPR))
> -			expr->flags = EXPR_FLAG_NONE;
> -	}
> +	expr->flags = left->flags & right->flags;
> +	expr_flags_decay_consts(&expr->flags);
> +	expr_clear_flag(&expr->flags, EXPR_FLAG_ADDR_CONST_EXPR);

Related to the [0 < 0.0] test case, shouldn't this be (re) done after
the call to usual_conversions() ?


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