On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 09:21:34PM +0000, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:
> 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?
It's on my development branch:
next
+ today's 2nd serie
+ today's 1st serie - 2 patches now unneeded.
So it's normal that you don't the same.
> 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
It's not incorrect, only that the scast is unneeded.
But strangely, I don't see that cast here.
-- 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
