Morten Welinder wrote:
>> While we're at it, below is somewhat ugly sparse patch for detecting
>> "&& 0x" typos.
>
> Excellent idea, and there is something to be said about a low-footprint patch
> like that. However, if you really want to capture this kind of bugs, you would
> need to have some kind "not a boolean" or "bitfield" attribute that
> can propagate.
> For example, you would want
>
> if (foo && (BAR | BAZ)) ...;
>
> with BAR and BAZ being hex constants to produce the same warning.
>
> Incidentally, it is probably not just hex constants that deserve this treatment:
> octal constants and variations of (1 << cst) are of the same nature. As well
> as enums defined in such manners.
Sparse has a notion of "integer constant expression" already, which it
uses to validate expressions used for things like bitfield widths or
array sizes. I could easily have Sparse warn on any use of an integer
constant expression as an operand of || or &&. However, I can imagine
that that might lead to some false positives when intentionally using
an integer constant expression in a condition and expecting the
compiler to optimize it out at compile time.
- Josh Triplett
-
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]
