On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Christopher Li <sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck > <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 02:00:50PM +0800, Christopher Li wrote: >>> 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? > > In has been a while. The currently code only touch the result constexpr_flags if > left and right are pointer and integer. Otherwise, the > constantexpr_flags are not > touch at all. It is not obvious what is the previous state of the > constantexpr_flags. > I mean maybe it should clear it is that is not a constant? Most of the > evaluate_xxx > function will just set the new constexpr_flags. The very first patch of the series insure that all flags are initialized to the default 'NONE'. Then the next patches build on this and add info/bits to flags case by case. As far as I can see the patch was correct. -- 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
