On Sun, Mar 05, 2017 at 10:49:37PM +0800, Christopher Li wrote:
> This can be written as:
>
> int has_init = !is_typedef && match_op(token, '=');
> if (has_init) {
Yes, it can.
But honestly I absolutely detest this 'has_init'.
> ....
>
> 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.
Since I just realize that this 'has_init' is not needed as we can
simply test the presence of decl->initializer, I'll remove it.
> I will apply this patch for sparse-next, I agree the warning is useful
> behavior. I am also expecting a follow up patch.
Yes.
Don't bother to add it to sparse-next, I'll send another version later.
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
