On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 09:48:24AM +0200, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > With the warning disabled by default (for the moment), I had to adapt > the testsuite with: Ah, so should I include that change in the patch itself when I make a V3? > > +Warn about anything that depends on the \fBsizeof\fR a function type or of void. > > Maybe it would be useful to add something along the line of "like directly using > the sizeof operator on void or doing pointer arithmetic on a void pointer" ? I actually just took the explanation straight from the GCC man page since I figured the explanation should match (as the flag itself is basicallt copied). But I do sort of like your wording of it more, so if no one else sees any reasons to _not_ to diverge from GCC's wording here I have no problem changing that. > > +Although non-standard (and somewhat illogical), constructs such as \fBsizeof(void)\fR > > +are often useful when the intent is to operate on an expression without evaluating > > +it, e.g. in the following integer constant expression predicate: > > +.nf > > +#define __is_constexpr(x) \\ > > + (sizeof(int) == sizeof(*(8 ? ((void *)((long)(x) * 0l)) : (int *)8))) > > +.fi > > I think that pointer arithmetic is much more useful than taking the size of void > (being able to take the size of *any* thing is somewhere in the middle, IMO). > But in all case, I don't think this part should belong to the man page. Also have no problem eliding this section if no one else has any good arguments for keeping it. -- Cheers, Joey Pabalinas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
