From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: fun with declarations and definitions Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 20:58:14 +0000 Message-ID: <20090202205814.GF28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20090202073018.GB28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <70318cbf0902021217r634f94a0y46fe572091a78634@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:49265 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753470AbZBBU6R (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:58:17 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <70318cbf0902021217r634f94a0y46fe572091a78634@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Christopher Li Cc: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 12:17:06PM -0800, Christopher Li wrote: > On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Al Viro wrote: > > There are several interesting problems caused by the fact that > > we create a separate symbol for each declaration of given function. > > Thanks for the patch. That is great. This is actually one of the two > hard problem in > sparse. I haven't able to solved them. (BTW, the other one was running > out of modifier bits.) Modifier bits are going to get easier - I have a patch series that takes a bunch out (basically, to hell with everything in MOD_SPECIFIER - the only hard part is on the parser side and I've got a saner way to deal with that).