On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 06:19:35PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Al Viro wrote:
> >On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 06:04:23PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> >>BTW, C++ could take over some of sparse's function:
> >>
> >
> >And the point of that would be? sparse is _fast_ and easy to modify;
> >g++ is neither.
> >
>
> I wasn't talking about modifying gcc to do the checking, rather using
> language features so that the checks would happen during a regular
> compile. That would mean we weren't dependent on somebody running sparse
> with a configuration that triggers the bug, but those few who compile
> the code before submitting the patch would get it automatically checked.
g++ won't cover all checks sparse is capable of, so you still want to
run the latter over new code anyway (== pass C=1 to make). IOW, type
safety from C++ isn't particulary good argument.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
