On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 05:57:52PM +0800, Christopher Li wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck
> <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Was slightly confusing when reading some code.
> > Better to remove it.
> >
> > @@ -2885,7 +2885,7 @@ static struct symbol *evaluate_call(struct expression *expr)
> > if (!sym->op->args(expr))
> > return NULL;
> > } else {
> > - if (!evaluate_arguments(sym, ctype, arglist))
> > + if (!evaluate_arguments(ctype, arglist))
> > return NULL;
>
> I think this is more or less fine, even though sym is not currently
> used in evaluate_arguments().
> ctype contain the function declare which usually is in a line earlier
> than the call expression.
> The "sym" argument in the most common case contain the symbol node,
> the ctype contain
> the base function type.
>
> One case might be useful for "exvaluate_arguments" to use symbol node
> is to output
> the beginning position of the call expression. The "fn" symbol point
> to the previous line
> and arglist in the later part of the expression.
>
> As I said, the node argument is currently not used. If you feel
> strongly about it
> I am fine with removing it as well.
Not much important to me, but said above, it's confusing: two args,
one called 'f', the other one 'fn' and one of them is unused ...
> Or maybe change it to "node" instead of "f", will that be better to understand?
Not much I think, 'node' has even less meaning to me than 'f'or 'fn'.
Better then to focus on the (potential) purpose of this arg.
If it's for the position, maybe pass only sym->pos.
But again, it's not important at all. Let not waste our time on it.
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
