> From: "Luc Van Oostenryck" <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Lance Richardson" <lrichard@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-sparse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, 8 May, 2017 7:25:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] sparse: add support for _Static_assert
>
> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 05:15:43PM -0400, Lance Richardson wrote:
> > This patch introduces support for the C11 _Static_assert() construct.
>
> For me, it's fine.
> I just have a small remarks (see below).
>
> > @@ -1945,13 +1953,17 @@ static struct token *declaration_list(struct token
> > *token, struct symbol_list **
> > static struct token *struct_declaration_list(struct token *token, struct
> > symbol_list **list)
> > {
> > while (!match_op(token, '}')) {
> > - if (!match_op(token, ';'))
> > - token = declaration_list(token, list);
> > - if (!match_op(token, ';')) {
> > - sparse_error(token->pos, "expected ; at end of declaration");
> > - break;
> > + if (match_ident(token, &_Static_assert_ident))
> > + token = parse_static_assert(token, NULL);
>
> I find it better with a 'continue' here
>
> > + else {
>
> so, this 'else' become unneeded and there is no
> more needs to move the previous content of the loop
> (which help a lot when reviewing patches or when
> digging in the history).
>
> -- Luc
>
That does seem better. I'll wait a bit for any further feedback from
Chris and post a new spin.
Thanks,
Lance
--
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
