From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 124F2C63798 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 08:11:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A57AA246DC for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 08:11:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="n14LNnn0" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726334AbgKSILl (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2020 03:11:41 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33736 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726315AbgKSILk (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2020 03:11:40 -0500 Received: from mail-ej1-x644.google.com (mail-ej1-x644.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::644]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65A98C0613CF for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:11:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ej1-x644.google.com with SMTP id gj5so6615620ejb.8 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:11:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=R4FLayzx8rpN9LWWfrT9ADYLTbbXkmBLymeCNBHPp2E=; b=n14LNnn0AW3ro+bNMrOmK8OOf+y4q0/2EW+gmHbUgtob4ctqkfxrFpJcNsImghwMVZ unZDLy1x4YZcgf9vP4UoQ2WU3iPqSazRf4i17WLg5cnY4qoR/niDwOtX7p9CRjYBQYiZ YPVE3XP/CegIf1tUU2iSSR/LY6ivaVpkcqbC/ltPPFZmMvPlRXtUh6GdRpSN6BN65cmS KAgcHcoqJ1nBee0PKvfzT1nZ5iv4V9Zpn4y9q9x7t723sWhHVgn06+ivBQEczbRiNUcY Kd5JimJThOkxIuLUZBs3JIycARSDqiercg2WH7GwYnaH+kMDbfRjI4fSfr9a9qhonLBU 3hGQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=R4FLayzx8rpN9LWWfrT9ADYLTbbXkmBLymeCNBHPp2E=; b=AYp38KduG1gY6wbbBZyeHUJxGdDogHGiI1PA1dUbtIzeo6+BIkRyuMwRrZEdT9c7Rc bzBQnGLGsK8hIHasvlFqhyooZHUV7TvZDc6ImnQjYay9aKmXlgrZi/B8z1rPum6RPDnb /TWSKY00LXZPYg0TUHbVDnKes+gVJf/+i45T9DUNxuckoKn7rkTvdnTHtFrJbnnixHhs uBM2rQxfhYrEHkuDcvDH1bF2B+huEYq44HP46jdeGUIwlo5bDFaOiTTgTPnCxOSJzQGG 8X7zMh2ORj5f3Log67xyZz3MjwZTI46l7diCyvy4y0qoo9uK2259+Ymw89k4O1O5ABuz E8qg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533RIVgDH23ixy9Bs55mVhXARqBxRvKGALbRZ5yza/wHRbaNwWfD aLjpl0oyv7+2DknvQe+SLYtI0PstBkI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxAzdnTWqUT/B2a8A5mXzezya9YME6fGPfhgCVhDT0mUOySc796ULtQIg2roSBOoRjblFyROQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:2657:: with SMTP id ar23mr9997646ejc.386.1605773499169; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:11:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from ltop.local ([2a02:a03f:b7fe:f700:b5cc:847:de2e:9ae3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f10sm4773391edw.93.2020.11.19.00.11.38 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 19 Nov 2020 00:11:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 09:11:37 +0100 From: Luc Van Oostenryck To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Sparse Mailing-list Subject: Re: [PATCH] casts should drop qualifiers Message-ID: <20201119081137.lxmry66fbww3rhrz@ltop.local> References: <20201117212829.99552-1-luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> <20201118191737.oq2e2t5h2wo3us3c@ltop.local> <20201118213027.3o74il23b5nesx3d@ltop.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 04:58:26PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 1:30 PM Luc Van Oostenryck > wrote: > > > > If I read the standard correctly (big 'if'), in: > > volatile int x; > > typeof(++x) y; > > 'y' should have the type 'volatile int' and GCC interpret it so. > > That sounds extremely odd to me. I think it should have the same type > as "x += 1" or "x = x+1", no? Yes, but both cases are explicitly excluded from C's 6.3.2.1 where lvalue-conversion is defined. This whole section was very confusing to me but the note 112) in n1570's 6.5.16.1 is somehow clearer. So yes, I'll drop this patch (I should have tagged it as RFC anyway). Thanks for the feedback. -- Luc.