Re: [RFC] potential DR in handling of signed int and unholy mess in our and gcc implementations

[David Given <dg@cowlark.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Al Viro wrote:
[...]
> I'll probably go for gcc-like behaviour in sparse for now, unless somebody
> sees a good reason not to.  At least that one is consistent and doesn't
> bring the shitloads of fun questions about behaviour of arithmetic conversions,
> etc.
> 
> Comments?

All I can really say to that is: ew.

I like bitfields and use them frequently, particularly for flags and
packing several small fields into a small space; luckily I've already
been pretty anally retentive about declaring them explicitly as 'signed'
or 'unsigned'.

- From the compiler perspective, Principle of Least Surprise would suggest
doing the consistent thing, which as you say is gcc-like. OTOH from the
linter perspective I'd be *strongly* in favour of a warning if sparse
sees a problematic declaration. Bitfields are an area where signedness
suddenly becomes really important. (int i : 1, anyone?)

Are you submitting a bug report to the standards people?

- --
┌─── ｄｇ＠ｃｏｗｌａｒｋ．ｃｏｍ ───── http://www.cowlark.com ─────
│
│ "All power corrupts, but we need electricity." --- Diana Wynne Jones,
│ _Archer's Goon_
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJwa7Zf9E0noFvlzgRAl6ZAKCb1Y9FNTkZRDQqvYH2URVZ7uw4uQCfeN8P
0Tif41kFR7FmUshV5PI7ogA=
=QHru
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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