| Message ID | 1397603337-28016-1-git-send-email-cody@linux.vnet.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 04:08:57PM -0700, Cody P Schafer wrote: > Makes sparse a little more accepting than the standard: we accept any > number of ["static", "restrict"] repeated in any order, while the n1570 > specifies (in 6.7.6.2.3) that either type-qualifiers (ie: "restrict") > come first and are followed by "static" or the opposite ("static" then > type-qualifiers). > > Also add a test. > > Signed-off-by: Cody P Schafer <cody@linux.vnet.ibm.com> What's the rationale for this? Why should sparse accept more than the standard allows? What real-world code do you have that requires this? And would it be worth adding a warning for this non-standards-compliant code, even if that warning isn't on by default? - Josh Triplett -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 04/16/2014 05:12 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 04:08:57PM -0700, Cody P Schafer wrote: >> Makes sparse a little more accepting than the standard: we accept any >> number of ["static", "restrict"] repeated in any order, while the n1570 >> specifies (in 6.7.6.2.3) that either type-qualifiers (ie: "restrict") >> come first and are followed by "static" or the opposite ("static" then >> type-qualifiers). >> >> Also add a test. >> >> Signed-off-by: Cody P Schafer <cody@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > What's the rationale for this? Why should sparse accept more than the > standard allows? What real-world code do you have that requires this? > > And would it be worth adding a warning for this non-standards-compliant > code, even if that warning isn't on by default? I could have sparse be just as strict as the standard, it just was just (much) simpler to make it liberal in what it accepts. If you're fine with some more verbose code, I'll put together something that is stricter. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 08:50:23PM -0700, Cody P Schafer wrote: > On 04/16/2014 05:12 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 04:08:57PM -0700, Cody P Schafer wrote: > >>Makes sparse a little more accepting than the standard: we accept any > >>number of ["static", "restrict"] repeated in any order, while the n1570 > >>specifies (in 6.7.6.2.3) that either type-qualifiers (ie: "restrict") > >>come first and are followed by "static" or the opposite ("static" then > >>type-qualifiers). > >> > >>Also add a test. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Cody P Schafer <cody@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > >What's the rationale for this? Why should sparse accept more than the > >standard allows? What real-world code do you have that requires this? > > > >And would it be worth adding a warning for this non-standards-compliant > >code, even if that warning isn't on by default? > > I could have sparse be just as strict as the standard, it just was just > (much) simpler to make it liberal in what it accepts. If you're fine with > some more verbose code, I'll put together something that is stricter. I'd suggest trying to match the standard in this case, or failing that match what GCC does. - Josh Triplett -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/ident-list.h b/ident-list.h index e93aae7..c0fc18f 100644 --- a/ident-list.h +++ b/ident-list.h @@ -91,6 +91,7 @@ IDENT(artificial); IDENT(__artificial__); IDENT(leaf); IDENT(__leaf__); IDENT(vector_size); IDENT(__vector_size__); IDENT(error); IDENT(__error__); +IDENT(static); /* Preprocessor idents. Direct use of __IDENT avoids mentioning the keyword diff --git a/parse.c b/parse.c index 9cc5f65..cbe3af4 100644 --- a/parse.c +++ b/parse.c @@ -1532,7 +1532,7 @@ static struct token *abstract_array_declarator(struct token *token, struct symbo { struct expression *expr = NULL; - if (match_idents(token, &restrict_ident, &__restrict_ident, NULL)) + while (match_idents(token, &restrict_ident, &__restrict_ident, &static_ident, NULL)) token = token->next; token = parse_expression(token, &expr); sym->array_size = expr; diff --git a/validation/abstract-array-declarator-static.c b/validation/abstract-array-declarator-static.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..23cbae0 --- /dev/null +++ b/validation/abstract-array-declarator-static.c @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ + +extern void f(int g[static 1]); + +/* + * check-name: abstract array declarator static + */
Makes sparse a little more accepting than the standard: we accept any number of ["static", "restrict"] repeated in any order, while the n1570 specifies (in 6.7.6.2.3) that either type-qualifiers (ie: "restrict") come first and are followed by "static" or the opposite ("static" then type-qualifiers). Also add a test. Signed-off-by: Cody P Schafer <cody@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- ident-list.h | 1 + parse.c | 2 +- validation/abstract-array-declarator-static.c | 6 ++++++ 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 validation/abstract-array-declarator-static.c