[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4963FA2E.2020109@shaw.ca>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:41:18 -0600
From: Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: confusing checkpatch.pl messages
Németh Márton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I run the checkpatch.pl against the attache file and it reported some
> confusing warning and error messages. The attached file has an obsoleted
> syntax:
>
> From "info gcc", Chapter 5.21 "Designated Initializers":
>> In a structure initializer, specify the name of a field to initialize
>> with `.FIELDNAME =' before the element value. For example, given the
>> following structure,
>>
>> struct point { int x, y; };
>>
>> the following initialization
>>
>> struct point p = { .y = yvalue, .x = xvalue };
>>
>> is equivalent to
>>
>> struct point p = { xvalue, yvalue };
>>
>> Another syntax which has the same meaning, obsolete since GCC 2.5, is
>> `FIELDNAME:', as shown here:
>>
>> struct point p = { y: yvalue, x: xvalue };
>
> However, the checkpatch.pl speaks about labels, which are incorrect, I think:
>> $ /usr/src/linux/scripts/checkpatch.pl --file test.c
>> WARNING: labels should not be indented
>> #5: FILE: test.c:5:
>> + open: test_open,
Well, the warning message is wrong, that part is presumably a bug. It's
right to complain, though, as that obsolete syntax shouldn't be used.
--
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