linux-kernel - Re: [Q] compiler no longer warning about undeclared struct?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1311847409.3897.23.camel@thorin>
Date:	Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:03:27 +0200
From:	Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at>
To:	Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Q] compiler no longer warning about undeclared struct?

Hi!

On Mit, 2011-07-27 at 19:57 +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
[....]
> I just ran across a driver in the kernel (drivers/media/video/ov2640.c, 
> struct ov2640_priv::info), that does something like
> 
> struct xx {
> 	struct yy *y;
> };
> 
> static void z(void)
> {
> 	struct xx *x;
> 	void *p;
> 
> 	x = ...;
> 	p = ...;
> 	x->y = p;
> }
> 
> where "struct yy" is nowhere declared, and the compiler happily swallows 
> this... Shouldn't it complain? Didn't it complain before?

It's normal C behaviour: As long as the compiler doesn't need the size
or fields of struct yy, it doesn't complain that it doesn't know the
details.

Otherwise you could not define recursive structures as in
----  snip  ----
struct a {
	struct *b;
};
struct b {
	struct *a;
};
----  snip  ----

Kind regards,
	Bernd
-- 
Bernd Petrovitsch                  Email : bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at
                     LUGA : http://www.luga.at

--
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/