From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Li Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: error, types differ in signedness Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:16:22 -0800 Message-ID: <20070206001622.GB14964@chrisli.org> References: <20070205105420.6f19a57d.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <20070205200617.GA14964@chrisli.org> <1170714431.1453.10.camel@dv> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([216.148.227.153]:53990 "EHLO rwcrmhc13.comcast.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965393AbXBFAoD (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:44:03 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1170714431.1453.10.camel@dv> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Pavel Roskin Cc: Randy Dunlap , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 05:27:11PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: > I think any difference between declarations other than missing argument > names is an example of sloppy coding and should be avoided. The original warning about pointer signedness difference is simply wrong. There might be value to have warning about function vs function pointer. On the other hand, some attribute can be only specified in function prototype declares but not the function body. > I would prefer that sparse emits a specific warning about function vs > function pointer mismatch. Even if it doesn't matter, it makes the code > easier to read and safer to modify. I did not find a easy way to do it yet. Chris