On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:19:22 +0100 Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:44:06PM +0100, Antonio Ospite wrote: [...] > > Hi Luc, > > > > this improves things a bit, but there is another issue with -E. > > > > If "-o file" is passed and only $do_check is enabled sparse will > > ignore the -o option and the preprocessed output will go to the stdout > > and not in the specified file, as would be expected by a normal gcc > > invocation. > > Yes, I know. Sparse always ignored the '-o option' but I added a patch > for it yesterday. > Thank you, I didn't see that patch in the git repository and I missed it on the ml because I am not subscribed, but I found it here https://marc.info/?l=linux-sparse&m=154270011802037&w=2 It seems to work fine with '-x c' for my use case. I'll review the patch about '-x c' now and send some minor comments. Another small addition would be for cgcc to also consume the argument of "-o" as soon as it finds it, to prevent it from being matched as an input file; e.g. when running: cgcc -E -o output.c input.c.in as for now, output.c would be matched by $do_check = 1 if /^[^-].*\.c$/; and $do_check would be enabled even though input.c.in does not end in '.c' and '-x c' is not passed. Which might as well be what the user want after all, but not what the code means to do. :) > > So the question is: does it make sense to run sparse on files which > > are only preprocessed? > > It really does make sense. The biggest reason is because you want > to have coherent results between the output of '-E' and sparse's > pre-processing at checking time (for example, if the code contains > #ifdef __CHECKER__). > OK, I see, thanks. Ciao ciao, Antonio -- Antonio Ospite https://ao2.it https://twitter.com/ao2it A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
