From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Derek M Jones Subject: Re: declaration specifiers wooziness Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:44:17 +0100 Message-ID: <468285D1.1020506@knosof.co.uk> References: <20070627103320.GA11047@localhost.sw.ru> <1182956472.8970.35.camel@josh-work.beaverton.ibm.com> <46827F4D.7010305@knosof.co.uk> <20070627153133.GD11047@localhost.sw.ru> <4682836C.10201@knosof.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.48]:42820 "EHLO mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753437AbXF0PoV (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:44:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4682836C.10201@knosof.co.uk> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Alexey Dobriyan Cc: Josh Triplett , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, adobriyan@gmail.com All, >>> The syntax permits: >>> >>> signed unsigned short long double int; >> >> Please, read 6.7.2(2). > > Semantic spoil sport. The point I did not mention before sending the email was the extent to which Sparse needs to check constructs that are constraint violations and thus assumed to be checked by the compiler. Ok, it is possible to get weird looking stuff through sparse without complaint, but is it worth spending time flagging it? Surely time should be concentrated on flagging suspicious constructs that are valid C and not in correctly handling obscure corners of the language. -- Derek M. Jones tel: +44 (0) 1252 520 667 Knowledge Software Ltd mailto:derek@knosof.co.uk Applications Standards Conformance Testing http://www.knosof.co.uk