Re: [PATCH 16/16] fix handling of integer constant expressions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 

On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 08:32:26AM +0900, Neil Booth wrote:
> Al Viro wrote:-
> 
> > Hopefully correct handling of integer constant expressions.  Please, review.
> 
> Am I invoking sparse wrongly?  ./sparse -W -Wall doesn't diagnose
> the following TU, for example.
> 
> extern int a;
> extern int as1[(a = 2)];

sparse simply doesn't check that.  We don't have anything resembling
support of VLA.  Note that check for integer constant expression
has nothing to do with that;

	int x[(int)(0.6 + 0.6)];

is valid (if stupid).  And yes, footnote in 6.6 contradicts 6.7.5.2(1);
too bad...

We certainly need to do checks on array sizes; however, that part
("if it has static storage duration, it should not be a VLA") is minor.
And then there are gccisms:
size_t foo(int n)
{
	struct {
		int a[n];
		char b;
	} x;
	return offsetof(typeof(x), b);
}

Yes, it's eaten up just fine.  And yes, such structures are silently
accepted even with -pedantic -std=c99, which is a bug.  Sigh...

We'll need to tackle VLAs at some point, but it certainly won't be fun ;-/
-
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]
  Powered by Linux