On 11 March 2017 at 20:44, Luc Van Oostenryck > But there is still
some bad issues that remains,
> for example pointer subtraction with NULL and some
> optimization that destroy correct typing info.
> They're bad enough to make me doubt of the value of this change.
>
> Here are some failing cases:
> #define NULL ((void *)0)
> int tst(int *ip) { return !ip; }
> int foo(int *ip) { return ip != NULL; }
> long bar(void *vp) { return vp - NULL; }
> long baz(int *ip) { return ip - ((int *)0); }
>
I only get a failure on the last one. But I am synced with master - so
it may be an issue with sparse-next branch?
For the last one, looks like linearized output is incorrect?
baz:
.L6:
<entry-point>
divs.64 %r13 <- %arg1, $4
scast.32 %r14 <- (64) %r13
ret.32 %r14
--
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
