Re: sparse-llvm array size computation issue

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Dibyendu Majumdar
<mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I am trying out an approach. If a SYM_NODE has a base type of SYM_NODE
> then which of the nodes should be used as the source for information
> you mention?

Does that actually happen? It shouldn't. A symbol node contains the C
name of the symbol, but you should never have a SYM_NODE that points
to another SYM_NODE, it always points to some actual type (ie ptr,
whatever).

So the rule should be that the node can have specific information
about that particular named symbol (so: name, array size, modifiers,
address space, initializer etc), and then the node->ctype.base_type
should point to a non-NODE symbol describing the base type.

But maybe I forget some special case. Things like 'typeof() can be
complicated, but we should be peeling things off so that we only ever
have one level of SYM_NODE.

                Linus
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Newbies FAQ]     [LKML]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Trinity Fuzzer Tool]

  Powered by Linux