Re: Sparse crash when mixing int and enum in ternary operator

[Kamil Dudka <kdudka@redhat.com>]

On Wednesday 10 of March 2010 21:27:21 Pavel Roskin wrote:
> That makes sense for certain kinds of software, where crash is too
> costly, but in case of sparse, I'd rather see it crash than ignore a
> condition that may indicate an error elsewhere (perhaps both in sparse
> and in the code it checks).
>
> I thing using assert() would be a better approach.  It's already used in
> sparse.
>
> I checked the whole kernel using assert in place of the NULL checks, and
> there have been no crashes.

I completely agree with that.  Let's give some time to sparse developers to 
respond.  If nobody objects, I'll change it to asserts.

> Maybe you could add a test case for the first patch?  What warnings does
> it remove?  What is "="?  Is it assignment or initialization or both?

Both of them.  Maybe worth to add a test-case for the initialization to make 
it more obvious...

> How about comparisons?

Definitely not.  That was the main goal of the 0001-Wenum-to-int patch.  It 
was really noisy since enum values are first implicitly casted to ints and 
then compared.  So there was no way to type-safely compare two enums without 
producing 6 lines of warnings.

> A better description would be nice.

Sure thing.  I didn't realize it was ambiguous.

Thank you for the review!

Kamil