Sorry for the late reply. I take a look of your V3 patches. May I ask a few questions regarding the constant expression. + CONSTEXPR_FLAG_INT_CONST = (1 << 0), + CONSTEXPR_FLAG_FP_CONST = (1 << 1), + CONSTEXPR_FLAG_ENUM_CONST = (1 << 2), + CONSTEXPR_FLAG_CHAR_CONST = (1 << 3), Can I say each of the above constant type are elusive to each other? e.g. the floating point constant can not be a integer constant at the same time. + + /* + * A constant expression in the sense of [6.6]: + * - integer constant expression [6.6(6)] + */ + CONSTEXPR_FLAG_INT_CONST_EXPR = (1 << 4), Can we express the const expression in terms of above constant flags? Each expression will have a ctype associate with it. It can be one of the int/fp/enum/char type. e.g. "1.0 + 1" is a floating type expression according to the C rules. In other words, it seems to me that the constant expression should have a deterministic ctype. We should be able to reuse the above constant flag without adding a new one. If not, please give some example to help me understand the issue. I am not suggesting to change your patches at this stage. It just help me understand your patch. Thanks Chris On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Nicolai Stange <nicstange@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Nicolai Stange <nicstange@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Here comes the greatly enhanced v3 of this series. > > Just a gently push to get some reviews on this... > -- 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
