On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Lance Richardson <lrichard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> if (cond && cond->type == EXPR_VALUE && >> !const_expression_value(cond)) > > This doesn't work for some cases. E.g. for an expression like > "sizeof(struct s) == 16", cond->type is EXPR_COMPARE before > const_expression_value(cond) is called and is only set to EXPR_VALUE after > the call has reduced the expression to a value. I was looking at this test > as a way to verify that const_expression_value() was successful. OK. That make sense. >> >> > + sparse_error(cond->pos, "static assertion failed: %s", >> > + show_string(message->string)); >> >> Then there: >> message ? show_string(message->string) : ""); >> >> I think the assert failed without message string, we already report >> the error on empty string >> expression. Raising the assert here might be acceptable? >> > > I was taking the more conservative approach of not assuming anything > about the interpretation of the two expressions if the assertion is not > syntactically correct. This seems like a better way to go. That is fine you chose that way. Chris -- 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
