On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 03:30:44PM -0800, Christopher Li wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Luc Van Oostenryck
> <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > I saw that a few patches have been pushed on the head,
> > including the two I disagreed with and which I explained *why*
> > they where wrong. Well.
> >
> > Meanwhile, I see some regressions with the current head.
> > For example some simple programs like:
> > void a(void)
> > {
> > int b[] = { 8 };
> > int c;
> > for (;;)
> > b[c] = b[0];
> > }
> > now crashes when used with test-linearize.
>
> Oops, reproduced. Thanks for the report.
>
> I see pseudo->ident polluted by pseudo->size.
> Separate them out of the union seems to fix the crash.
The right and wise thing would have to:
1) take the 2 patches that Jason is waiting for since 5 months
(if you agree with).
2) take Randy's patch with the early return NULL
3) take Randy's patch to silence the indirect_branch attribute
4) take my patch to disable the default -Wunknown-attribute
5) inc the version number
6) push a release so that people stop seeing the current
148K+ warnings about the unknown indirect_branch attribute.
But people are still waiting and seeing these 148K+ useless
warnings and you have forced in a patch which:
1) I explained to you why it was wrong
2) nobody need (even not Dibyendu who, since many weeks, has
taken what he wanted in hiw heavily modified tree)
3) have not been tested (I told you that *if* you make changes
to the generated code, you better should test it. You have
zero such tests)
4) contains a beginner error
Now you still have the choice to Do The Right Thing:
revert these two patches and push this release or display the
level your stubbornness can reach.
What will you do?
-- 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
