[patches] more declarations fixes

[patches] more declarations fixes

[Al Viro]

OK, that pile ought to take care of a lot of nastiness.  We still have
rather messy crap in attributes' handling, but it's actually getting
cleaner now.  In particular, direct_declarator and declaration_specifiers
are relatively sane, handling of type specifiers should be correct now (and
much cleaner than it used to be) and most of the tangled mess around
attributes is untangled.  Still a mess, but at least doing something
about it becomes feasible...

That series is on top of Chris' tree; equivalent on top of Josh's one
is not particulary different.  Have fun...

Re: [patches] more declarations fixes

[Christopher Li]

Great change. Thanks.

I will try it out later tonight.

Chris

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> OK, that pile ought to take care of a lot of nastiness.  We still have
> rather messy crap in attributes' handling, but it's actually getting
> cleaner now.  In particular, direct_declarator and declaration_specifiers
> are relatively sane, handling of type specifiers should be correct now (and
> much cleaner than it used to be) and most of the tangled mess around
> attributes is untangled.  Still a mess, but at least doing something
> about it becomes feasible...
>
> That series is on top of Chris' tree; equivalent on top of Josh's one
> is not particulary different.  Have fun...
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [patches] more declarations fixes

[Al Viro]

On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 03:55:47PM -0700, Christopher Li wrote:
> Great change. Thanks.
> 
> I will try it out later tonight.

And while we are at it, here come 3 scope-related fixes...

BTW, what in the name of everything unholy have you got in
validation/static-forward-decl.c?  Misplaced error line?

Re: [patches] more declarations fixes

[Christopher Li]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> BTW, what in the name of everything unholy have you got in
> validation/static-forward-decl.c?  Misplaced error line?

Err, that is obvious a screw up from my side. It just happen on a file
supposed to fail so I did not notice it. I will clean it up.

Thanks for point it out.

Chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [patches] more declarations fixes

[Christopher Li]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> OK, that pile ought to take care of a lot of nastiness.  We still have
> rather messy crap in attributes' handling, but it's actually getting
> cleaner now.  In particular, direct_declarator and declaration_specifiers
> are relatively sane, handling of type specifiers should be correct now (and
> much cleaner than it used to be) and most of the tangled mess around
> attributes is untangled.  Still a mess, but at least doing something
> about it becomes feasible...
>

I really like these series of patches. All applied.

It is much cleaner now.

BTW, what does Set_S and Set_T means? Symbol and type?

Chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [patches] more declarations fixes

[Al Viro]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 02:27:26PM -0700, Christopher Li wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > OK, that pile ought to take care of a lot of nastiness. ?We still have
> > rather messy crap in attributes' handling, but it's actually getting
> > cleaner now. ?In particular, direct_declarator and declaration_specifiers
> > are relatively sane, handling of type specifiers should be correct now (and
> > much cleaner than it used to be) and most of the tangled mess around
> > attributes is untangled. ?Still a mess, but at least doing something
> > about it becomes feasible...
> >
> 
> I really like these series of patches. All applied.
> 
> It is much cleaner now.
> 
> BTW, what does Set_S and Set_T means? Symbol and type?

s/symbol/solitary/, actually (it's used for the things that don't mix with
other specifiers at all).  T is more or less "type" - it's for the large
group of specifiers that are mutually exclusive (int/char/double/float/all
solitary ones - the only things that are *not* part of that set are
signed/unsigned/long/short).  For the sake of completeness, Set_Vlong (used
to track having seen "long" twice) comes from the name Plan 9 C compiler
used (pre-C99) for long long; they call it vlong, presumably with "v" for
"very".

FWIW, float could be considered solitary too, if not for (yet to be supported)
_Complex.  Parser-side modifications to support that would be fairly simple,
especially if we support gcc extensions[1].  Of course, we'd need to deal
with that more than just in parser - expand.c and evaluate.c at the very
least, and we'd need new EXPR_... node types for constant values...


[1] C99 gives parser a bit of a wart since _Complex, _Complex long and
long _Complex are not accepted, so we get valid combinations that have
invalid prefices; not a big deal.  Requires slightly different definition
for complex_op and an extra check and warning in the end of process.
gcc, out of either laziness or sheer insanity allows complex for *any*
arithmetic types, even though e.g. complex char makes no sense whatsoever,
so it's even simpler for parser to deal with.