On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -2896,7 +2896,9 @@ static struct token *external_decl(struct token *token, process_decl_t process_d
> }
>
> for (;;) {
> + int has_init = 0;
> if (!is_typedef && match_op(token, '=')) {
> + has_init = 1;
This can be written as:
int has_init = !is_typedef && match_op(token, '=');
if (has_init) {
....
> if (decl->ctype.modifiers & MOD_EXTERN) {
> warning(decl->pos, "symbol with external linkage has initializer");
> decl->ctype.modifiers &= ~MOD_EXTERN;
> @@ -2904,7 +2906,7 @@ static struct token *external_decl(struct token *token, process_decl_t process_d
> token = initializer(&decl->initializer, token->next);
> }
> if (!is_typedef)
> - process_decl(list, decl);
> + process_decl(list, decl, has_init);
My comment regarding patch 5/7 still stands valid here. If you keep the common
logic here, move the code from "default_process_decl" body back to here.
You can avoid passing has_init into process_decl at all.
Passing the "has_init" into a call back function make the code hard to
read because the logic has separated into two function. At the same time
process_for_loop_decl does not issue this warning at all, I think it should.
I will apply this patch for sparse-next, I agree the warning is useful
behavior. I am also expecting a follow up patch.
Chris
--
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
