From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: fun with ?: Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 01:14:31 +0100 Message-ID: <20070524001431.GD4095@ftp.linux.org.uk> References: <20070519025249.GZ4095@ftp.linux.org.uk> <4653633B.3000000@freedesktop.org> <20070522224619.GI4095@ftp.linux.org.uk> <46537BC1.9000808@freedesktop.org> <20070523000234.GJ4095@ftp.linux.org.uk> <20070523142544.GB2547@daikokuya.co.uk> <20070523143202.GY4095@ftp.linux.org.uk> <20070523144716.GC2547@daikokuya.co.uk> <20070523153255.GA4095@ftp.linux.org.uk> <20070523230143.GG2547@daikokuya.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:46864 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755709AbXEXAOc (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 May 2007 20:14:32 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070523230143.GG2547@daikokuya.co.uk> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Neil Booth Cc: Josh Triplett , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 08:01:43AM +0900, Neil Booth wrote: > Al Viro wrote:- > > > BTW, the fun question is whether (int)(1.1) is allowed; the same goes > > for "is ((void *)0) a null pointer constant". 6.5.1 is sloppy ;-) > > I believe that the intent is that parentheses are not viewed as > operators, just a grouping tool, so yes to both. All implementations > I'm aware of take that view. Sure - especially for the second example ;-) And no, I don't think anybody can be arsed to file a DR about that.