On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 05:08:16PM +0100, Nicolai Stange wrote: > Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Better here also to split the patch in two: > > one add the -W flag flag and another one which will use it. > > Introducing a flag without any functionality attached to it feels wrong > for me. For example, where to update the manpage? Before or after actual > functionality is introduced? For me it's fine when it's all part of the same serie. The update to the manpage should be done when adding the flag, before using it. > >> @@ -2633,6 +2647,16 @@ static int handle_simple_initializer(struct expression **ep, int nested, > > ... > >> + warning(e->pos, "initializer for static storage duration object is not a constant expression"); > > > > This is quite longish message. > > What about something like "non-constant initializer"? > > That could be misleading: > > static const int a = 1; > static const int b = a; > > is forbidden, but obiously, 'a' is constant. > > I'd like to keep the C99 term "constant expression", as well as > "initializer" and "static". > > I could s/storage duration//. Or "non-constant initializer for static object"? > >> +int Wstatic_initializer_not_const = 0; > > > > Here also it's quite longish. Yes I'm a lazy typer :) > > What about simply -Wconst-initializer ? > > Josh Triplett wrote in his replies to my RFC series: > Shouldn't it be something like -Wnon-constant-initializer, > since that's what it checks for? > > I conclude that we generally want to have -Wwhat-is-checked. > Now, it is the *non*-constant initializers that are being checked for. > > Unfortunately, -WnoXXXXXXX seems to get misinterpreted as "switch > XXXXXXX" off by sparse's command line parsing. > In this case "switch n-constant-initializer off". > (I did not verify that by reading code, just by trying it out and > failing, so just a guess). Yes the code disable warning flags that begin by 'no' or 'no-' . I see things a bit more loosely: -Wfoobar could means that we will check and warn something related to 'foobar' but yes it's certainly better to keep the logic in the direction "warn if 'foobar' is encountered". > The -Wstatic-initializer-not-const choice made in the current series is > simply a workaround, any better suggestions welcome! > > I'm also fine with -Wstatic-initializer. > > Comments? I dunno. Better to leave it so for now, I think. 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
