Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add NOWARN and NOERR compile conditions

[Tony Camuso <tcamuso@redhat.com>]

On 07/31/2015 07:46 PM, Christopher Li wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:45 AM, Tony Camuso <tcamuso@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> I thought it would be less intrusive, since I don't know how useful
>> this would be to others.
>>
>> If you prefer a switch, I will do that.
>
> I agree that this should be run time behavior.
>
> +
> +#if defined NOWARN || defined NOERR
> +               return token->next;
> +#else
>
> What is up with this change? It is not output warning or not.
> It affect the parsing as well. If sparse can't bail out properly,
> this should be a separate patch.
>
> Chris
>

Hi, Chris.

I've since submitted a runtime patch (3/3 V3) with a switch as a
response to this patch, but it basically does the same thing here.

Consider the case where the source contains something like this...

	struct foo {
		union {
			int number;
			int *pointer;
		};
	};

There being no ident for the union within the struct, we get the warning,
"missing identifier in declaration" etc.

Code without the patch.

	/* Just a type declaration? */
	if (!ident) {
		warning(token->pos, "missing identifier in declaration");
		return expect(token, ';', "at the end of type declaration");
	}
  
Regards,
Tony