On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 1:25 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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). I think I have apply them a few days ago. Unless it is a different set. > 2) take Randy's patch with the early return NULL > 3) take Randy's patch to silence the indirect_branch attribute Already in the tip. > 4) take my patch to disable the default -Wunknown-attribute Sure. I am about to ask this. It has been puzzling me for a while. You did not send git merge request any more. Per our agreement I can't directly apply your patch. I did not have a chance to comment on every one of your patch (some did not apply to my tree). But there is a lot of patches I did comment on looks good did not come back as git merges. Come to think of it. Almost none. > 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 I have look back to your email. I have answer your concerns. Did you write this in the last email I did reply on " *eventually* it may very well be the right solution" ========== quote from your email =========== > > Now, I have no hard problem with the PSEUDO_VAL.size > approach from a theorical point of view (even if I would > prefer the mathematical PoV that 0 is 0, 1 is 1, etc.). > I even think that *eventually* it may very well be > the right solution (probably the whole typing at IR > level need to be revisited). I think constant pseudo have a size is the right solution in the long run. =============== end quote============ The V2 patch has send out in Nov to address your concern that it does not have end to end testing. Dibyendu Majumdar was busy and he eventual test it come back OK. You are CC on the whole thread and no other email on that thread. It is 4 month ago. > 2) nobody need (even not Dibyendu who, since many weeks, has > taken what he wanted in hiw heavily modified tree) Dibyendu did care enough to test it. Thanks him for the effort. > 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) As you know I did have the full kernel compile test on it. It give the same result. So it is not badly affecting the kernel checking for sure. > 4) contains a beginner error Do you know if that follow up patch can fix it? If that is the eventually right direction, it has bug not as intended, then we fix the bug. If it has directional issue, then that is a different story. 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
