Hi Luc, On 28 December 2017 at 15:07, Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > When an array is declared without an explicit size. In this case, > an implicit size is given by the number of elements in its initializer > if one is present. > > Currently, in sparse, this implicit size is only associated with > the node corresponding to the initializer while the base type is > left unsized. This is a problem because the node is only used for > the modifiers & address-space and the bitsize of nodes are expected > to match the size of the basetype. So this implicit size can be used > for when directly using the bit_size of the node but the array is > still left, essentially unsized. > Previous thread on this issue: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-sparse/msg05427.html Regards Dibyendu -- 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
