On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 03:06:36PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> *unprintable*
>
> Yes, I see... OK, null pointer constants handling (next patch in the
> queue) introduces is_zero_constant() (silent evaluation of integer
> constant expression, with division by 0/too large shift/- on lowest
> value of signed integer type leaving the branch as-is, so that later
> expand would generate a proper error on it; then checking if we'd
> reduced the sucker to EXPR_VALUE[0]). I'll pull it into a separate
> patch, along with is_nonzero_constant(), and change rules for potential
> ICE on parser stage to
> maybe-ICE && y => maybe-ICE
> maybe-ICE || y => maybe-ICE
> maybe-ICE ? x : y => maybe-ICE if at least one of x and y is maybe-ICE
> maybe-ICE ? : y => maybe-ICE
> letting evaluate_expression() on such suckers use them if the first argument
> turns out to be ICE after its evaluate_expression()...
>
> It really stinks, especially since we can't say "oh, parent it known to
> be non-ICE, no need to bother" - subexpression might be shared.
... or it could be done simpler, if we keep the current logics for
Int_const_expr flag at parse time and add a 'const expression' one
with rules as above. Anyway, I'm going to get some sleep before
dealing with that crap.
-
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]
