From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Pfaff Subject: Re: [PATCH] evaluate: Allow sizeof(_Bool) to succeed. Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:48:06 -0700 Message-ID: <20110512204806.GC3371@nicira.com> References: <1304552394-16280-1-git-send-email-blp@nicira.com> <20110509200231.GG2971@nicira.com> <20110509204937.GI2971@nicira.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from 173-167-111-49-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.167.111.49]:60875 "EHLO leadville.nicira.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758620Ab1ELUsI (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 May 2011 16:48:08 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Christopher Li Cc: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 05:09:42PM -0700, Christopher Li wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > I could change my IDL code generator to do something different for > > this case, but I don't see anything actually wrong with it. ?This > > userspace code is not performance-critical or sensitive to memory > > usage, so it's not necessary on the face of it to optimize it. > > Removing the warning will lose the chance to see it on other potential > problematic usage. If you insist on no warning. You can submit a patch > to add a switch to disable it. We have a lot of those for fine grain warning > control. I just don't see this warning can hurt on the kernel checking side. For now, I've decided to just rewrite code on the Open vSwitch side to avoid sizeof(_Bool) entirely. If it becomes a problem again, I'll submit a -Wno-sizeof-bool patch. Thanks for considering my reasons. Ben