From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Roskin Subject: Re: Bogus locking warnings Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 02:24:26 -0500 Message-ID: <1172561066.19312.28.camel@dv> References: <1172540552.5835.41.camel@dv> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]:59308 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751443AbXB0HY2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Feb 2007 02:24:28 -0500 Received: from proski by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HLwfl-0001Va-Hg for linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 02:22:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 20:19 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > and don't expect sparse to do any dynamic checking. It's expressly > designed to *not* do that, although some of the static optimizations > are > clever enough that sometimes you are fooled into *thinking* that it > actually understands dynamic behaviour (ie being able to statically > follow > a conditional jump to another identical conditional jump and simplify > it > to a single branch). It has been fooling me until now. Anyway, thanks for the detailed answer! I'll try to do what you are suggesting. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin