On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Christopher Li <sparse@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
>
> With this applied, sparse still have a bug at did not match the
> value to the bit field member, right? I saw on the other email
> thread said the value always pick offset zero.
I'm not sure to understand.
Have you an example?
> Should I apply this as patch format or wait for it show up in a
> git pull request later?
Wait for the pull request, please.
>> --- a/expand.c
>> +++ b/expand.c
>> @@ -644,6 +644,8 @@ static int expand_dereference(struct expression *expr)
>> if (value) {
>> /* FIXME! We should check that the size is right! */
>> if (value->type == EXPR_VALUE) {
>> + if (is_bitfield_type(value->ctype))
>> + return UNSAFE;
>
> You might want to consider move this outside of the EXPR_VALUE.
> I assume there is a bug in sparse matching the value to the member
> wrong, it could happen to EXPR_FVALUE as well.
Well ..., if we have an EXPR_FVALUE which type is a bitfield, yes
for sure there would be a bug. But I have no reason to belive there
is such bug and since checking the ctype is more costly than checking
the expr->type, I think it's best so.
Note, I find this check already annoying and hackish if not worse.
-- 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
