From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Li Subject: Re: Feature request - suppress warnings for system libraries Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 15:03:17 -0800 Message-ID: <20070202230317.GE27667@chrisli.org> References: <1170438183.2272.29.camel@dv> <20070202220148.GB27667@chrisli.org> <1170455865.4698.8.camel@dv> <20070202223155.GD27667@chrisli.org> <20070202231705.GF10050@ftp.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from alnrmhc15.comcast.net ([204.127.225.95]:57671 "EHLO alnrmhc15.comcast.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946157AbXBBXaP (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Feb 2007 18:30:15 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070202231705.GF10050@ftp.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Al Viro Cc: Pavel Roskin , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 11:17:05PM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 02:31:55PM -0800, Christopher Li wrote: > > I'm not sure. __transparent_union__ is an atrocious kludge and it does > deserve a warning. So getting it to STFU on known offenders we have no > chance to fix is OK, but legitimizing that abortion is not. I did not mean to legitimizing it. I just don't want to silence suppress this kind of warnings. > Unlike __transparent_union__, restrict is at least a valid C... It's not > that hard to handle, except for the shortage of bits for modifiers... I have a patch free up the specials bits in modifiers. It helps a little bit. But I think we need a attribute pointer in ctype to fit more attributes eventually. Chris