From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: fun with declarations and definitions Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 04:41:56 +0000 Message-ID: <20090203044156.GI28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20090202073018.GB28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <70318cbf0902021907w634ffc6dm693022b23a0eabfc@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]:33058 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754107AbZBCEl6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Feb 2009 23:41:58 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <70318cbf0902021907w634ffc6dm693022b23a0eabfc@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 07:07:24PM -0800, Christopher Li wrote: > > } else if (base_type && base_type->type == SYM_FN) { > > + if (decl->next_id && decl->next_id->scope == decl->scope) > > Not sure what this is trying to do. Shouldn't the next line to be indented > if I read it correctly? Yuck. That's a leftover that hadn't been caught since it affects only K&R definitions. Kill that line... ObDeclarationParsing: I'm sorely (_very_ sorely) tempted to claim that gcc folks are violating GPL. Proof: gcc/c-parse.in, around productions for declspecs_*. Of course, they can say that this _is_ the preferred form for making modifications, but having such admission made in public would be worth it... Trying to sort out the __attribute__ handling in there just plain hurts ;-/