On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 4:17 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 'bad_type' is used for ... bad types instead of NULL > in order to avoid later lots of null-checking. Is there a good reason to keep both NULL and "bad_type" to represent bad types? May be we should keep it simple, make NULL as the haven't been evaluated. After evaluate if there is type error, replace the NULL as bad type. So that we can tell this expression is evaluated or not. In other word, replace all usage of NULL as bad type into "bad_type". That would be more consistent. 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
