Re: declaration specifiers wooziness

[Josh Triplett <josht@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 16:44 +0100, Derek M Jones wrote:
> 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.

Ideally, I would like Sparse to provide a self-contained set of
warnings, even those potentially redundant with a compiler.  However, I
agree that in general Sparse should give priority to issues that a
compiler will not already flag.

- Josh Triplett