[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070627001803.GJ21478@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:18:03 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To: Neil Booth <neil@...kokuya.co.uk>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...edesktop.org>,
Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/16] fix handling of integer constant expressions
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 08:32:26AM +0900, Neil Booth wrote:
> Al Viro wrote:-
>
> > Hopefully correct handling of integer constant expressions. Please, review.
>
> Am I invoking sparse wrongly? ./sparse -W -Wall doesn't diagnose
> the following TU, for example.
>
> extern int a;
> extern int as1[(a = 2)];
sparse simply doesn't check that. We don't have anything resembling
support of VLA. Note that check for integer constant expression
has nothing to do with that;
int x[(int)(0.6 + 0.6)];
is valid (if stupid). And yes, footnote in 6.6 contradicts 6.7.5.2(1);
too bad...
We certainly need to do checks on array sizes; however, that part
("if it has static storage duration, it should not be a VLA") is minor.
And then there are gccisms:
size_t foo(int n)
{
struct {
int a[n];
char b;
} x;
return offsetof(typeof(x), b);
}
Yes, it's eaten up just fine. And yes, such structures are silently
accepted even with -pedantic -std=c99, which is a bug. Sigh...
We'll need to tackle VLAs at some point, but it certainly won't be fun ;-/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists