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

[Kamil Dudka <kdudka@redhat.com>]

On Mon March 29 2010 20:05:08 Christopher Li wrote:
> Using enum namespace for member "namespace" has benefit here. It is clear
> that which set of value it belongs to. E.g. if you assign SYM_NODE into
> "namespace" member it *looks* is obvious wrong.

We are able to catch assignment of SYM_NODE to 'enum namespace'.  But we are 
not able to catch (SYM_NODE | SYM_ENUM) to 'enum namespace', so that the patch 
makes no difference.  Or am I missing anything?

> It also helps people understand which set of value belongs to
> "namespace" member.
> Make "namespace" a plain int, that message is lost. It become very
> confusing for new comer
> what value was allowed in this int type.

The identifier ns_mask sounds clear to me, maybe namespace_mask would be 
better.  But yes ... I am not a new comer here :-)

> So back to my point. It seems making the enum more strict is just make up
> rules and gain nothing in real life. It makes code looks worse just to
> make strict enum type
> happy.

I don't think the code looks worse, nevertheless respect your attitude.

Kamil