On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 04:40:07AM +0800, Christopher Li wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck > <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> So now that "fix value of label statement" is applied, you can > >> safely apply "fix killing of OP_SETVAL instructions" somewhere > >> after it, it won't create useless noise. > > > > I just noticed that you have added it at the top of sparse-next > > but what you applied (basically adding "case OP_SETVAL" in > > simplify_instruction()) is *not* what the patch I sent did > > (adding "case OP_SETVAL" in kill_instruction())s and causes > > quick crashes.. > > I suppose there was a conflict or so. > > > > Do you want that I sent a new patch or can you solve it > > directly? > > Strange. That is the only patch I found in my series. Well, it was the rigth patch in the sense that it had the right log message and stuff but the resulting diff was only correct within a 1 line context. With a 3 lines context 'git am' or a pure 'patch < ...' should have given a conflict as one of the patch that was initialy just after it (1856b3461 "fix killing OP_CAST & friends") made also some changes in the same lines and these two patch have now been exchanged. > Sure, go ahead and send me the new one. I will take out the > one in sparse-next and replace to your new one. Done. 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
