On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 02:00:50PM +0800, Christopher Li wrote:
> Hi Nicolai,
>
> I finally finish up my more serious review of your patch series.
> So this email is going to be long. Sorry for the long delay.
>
> Over all pretty good.
>
...
>
> 4) in patch 12:
> static struct symbol *evaluate_ptr_add(struct expression *expr,
> struct symbol *itype)
> {
> struct expression *index = expr->right;
> struct symbol *ctype, *base;
> int multiply;
>
> classify_type(degenerate(expr->left), &ctype);
> base = examine_pointer_target(ctype);
>
> + /*
> + * An address constant +/- an integer constant expression
> + * yields an address constant again [6.6(7)].
> + */
> + if ((expr->left->constexpr_flags & CONSTEXPR_FLAG_ADDR_CONST) &&
> + (expr->right->constexpr_flags & CONSTEXPR_FLAG_INT_CONST_EXPR))
> + expr->constexpr_flags = CONSTEXPR_FLAG_ADDR_CONST;
> +
> The constant flags should be set regardless. Otherwise it is not consistent
> with the rest of the code.
Chris, I don't really understand your remark here (regardless what ?).
Can you explain it a bit more please?
-- 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
