From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kamil Dudka Subject: Re: [PATCH] add warnings enum-to-int and int-to-enum Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:54:01 +0200 Message-ID: <200909032054.01900.kdudka@redhat.com> References: <20090830153202.4dc5c58c@s6510> <200909031347.35371.kdudka@redhat.com> <70318cbf0909031138s4c066005vcd8b8f614723b05f@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:7184 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755026AbZICSzL (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:55:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <70318cbf0909031138s4c066005vcd8b8f614723b05f@mail.gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Christopher Li Cc: Josh Triplett , Stephen Hemminger , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , Morten Welinder On Thursday 03 of September 2009 20:38:24 Christopher Li wrote: > I think it is cleaner to have one single place to look for the ctype of > an expression.We don't have to convert it to int type. I think most of the > sparse code can deal with enum type any way. I don't like the dual > personality of expressions. Two personalities are still not so many ... have you ever looked to the gcc code? :-) [...] > I don't see why it is hard to split. Can we just make the code which add > new options and issue new warnings to a separate patch? We shouldn't > need to reverse engineering the old behavior to do that. I didn't say hard, but actually not useful from my point of view. If it's easy for you to split my patch to the two pieces, you are welcome to have a go at that. We can still wait for opinion of the original authors. Perhaps they can bring some light to this problem. Kamil