From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olivier MATZ Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] rte_timer: fix invalid declaration of rte_timer_cb_t Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:39:01 +0100 Message-ID: <54EC54C5.2060002@6wind.com> References: <1424700600-1765-1-git-send-email-pawelx.wodkowski@intel.com> <1424700600-1765-2-git-send-email-pawelx.wodkowski@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Pawel Wodkowski , dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1424700600-1765-2-git-send-email-pawelx.wodkowski-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" Hi Pawel, On 02/23/2015 03:09 PM, Pawel Wodkowski wrote: > Declaration for function pointer should be > typedef ret_type (*type_name)(args...) > not > typedef ret_type (type_name)(args...) > > although compiler treat both of them the same, the static analysis tool > like klocwork complain about that. Can you give some details about the reason why klocwork is complaining? Looking at the C11 standard, it seems that this syntax is legal. Please see EXAMPLE 4, page 156 of: http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1570.pdf Regards, Olivier