From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Roskin Subject: Re: Feature request - allow boolean operations of undefined cpp symbols Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:42:32 -0400 Message-ID: <1177108952.8787.6.camel@dv> References: <1170437836.2272.22.camel@dv> <46288FA2.4040700@freedesktop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]:56383 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1767299AbXDTWmg (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:42:36 -0400 Received: from proski by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Hf1lm-000329-L5 for linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:39:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46288FA2.4040700@freedesktop.org> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Josh Triplett Cc: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 03:02 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > This states that we must substitute 0 for any undefined preprocessor symbol > in a #if or #elif condition, no matter what kind of expression they show up > in. My point was that it's more likely to be a user error in case of non-trivial expressions. But arguing with Linus about probabilities of user errors and other fuzzy matters is not something I'm prepared to. > However, Pavel, if you feel you could make part of -Wundef suitable to join > the default set of warnings, feel free. I really don't care about this part. I actually think that sparse should augment gcc capabilities rather than duplicate them. If we cannot do better than gcc, we can just stop bothering. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin