On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 06:18:07PM +0000, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote: > H Luc, > > On 27 January 2017 at 17:11, Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 27 January 2017 at 15:59, Van Oostenryck Luc > > <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I think both problems are already addressed but the patches haven't > >> yet been handled. > >> > >> You may look at: > >> - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9469701/ > > I had a look at the two patches. I think this one is only for > comparison operations? So the particular failure I saw will still > occur I think. Yes, indeed. I've quickly looked at your test case; It seems to be related to a type problem, probably related to size_t.(I see: ... call i8* @alloc(i0 4) and this 'i0' is very suspect. The following also fail because of a type problem but with the pointer. Even with replacing the pointers by void pointers it gives: i64 %0 = call i8* @malloc(i0 4) where the i64 is clearly wrong. It's possible that this late problem is a side effect of my second patch, I'll investigate this tommorow. Regards, 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
