From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Christopher Li" Subject: Re: [PATCH] allow ifdef in macro arguments Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:13:02 -0700 Message-ID: <70318cbf0710220913y35ab6128jeb0c0c413e40f22e@mail.gmail.com> References: <70318cbf0710210207t587f8d2enf024a56e1d10a5df@mail.gmail.com> <20071021155211.GX8181@ftp.linux.org.uk> <471BE8E8.3020200@freedesktop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.190]:62377 "EHLO rv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751175AbXJVQND (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:13:03 -0400 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id k20so1214078rvb for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:13:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <471BE8E8.3020200@freedesktop.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Josh Triplett Cc: Al Viro , Linux-Sparse I want to know the answer too so I can try a different patch or just forget about it. Chris On 10/21/07, Josh Triplett wrote: > Al Viro wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 02:07:15AM -0700, Christopher Li wrote: > >> I think some one report it long time ago. > > > > It should not accept those. Undefined behaviour and if you try to actually > > define the semantics for it, you run into such a pile of corner cases that > > it's not worth even trying. > > Do you think the cases handled by GCC warrant making an attempt and > warning about it, or should Sparse just throw up its hands and give > up? > > If the latter, should Sparse make any attempt at all to detect > preprocessor conditionals in macro arguments so it can give a more > specific warning? > > - Josh Triplett > > >