linux-sparse.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>
To: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
Cc: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>,
	linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, Christopher Li <sparse@chrisli.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] evaluate: check static storage duration objects' intializers' constness
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 04:00:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y4b5f83h.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160126014227.GE46188@macpro.local> (Luc Van Oostenryck's message of "Tue, 26 Jan 2016 02:42:28 +0100")

Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 03:57:45PM +0100, Nicolai Stange wrote:
>> Initializers of static storage duration objects shall be constant
>> expressions [6.7.8(4)].
>> 
>> Warn if that requirement is not met and the -Wstatic-initializer-not-const
>> flag has been given on sparse's command line.
>> 
>> Identify static storage duration objects by having either of
>> MOD_TOPLEVEL or MOD_STATIC set.
>> 
>> Check an initializer's constness at the lowest possible subobject
>> level, i.e. at the level of the "assignment-expression" production
>> in [6.7.8].
>> 
>> For compound objects, make handle_list_initializer() pass the
>> surrounding object's storage duration modifiers down to
>> handle_simple_initializer() at subobject initializer evaluation.
>
> Better here also to split the patch in two:
> one add the -W flag flag and another one which will use it.
>
> ch > Signed-off-by: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  evaluate.c                  |  26 ++++++++++-
>>  lib.c                       |   2 +
>>  lib.h                       |   2 +-
>>  sparse.1                    |   7 +++
>>  validation/constexpr-init.c | 110 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  5 files changed, 145 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>  create mode 100644 validation/constexpr-init.c
>> 
>> diff --git a/evaluate.c b/evaluate.c
>> index 70f419f..e3b08e4 100644
>> --- a/evaluate.c
>> +++ b/evaluate.c
>> @@ -2468,6 +2468,7 @@ static void handle_list_initializer(struct expression *expr,
>>  {
>>  	struct expression *e, *last = NULL, *top = NULL, *next;
>>  	int jumped = 0;
>> +	unsigned long old_modifiers;
>>  
>>  	FOR_EACH_PTR(expr->expr_list, e) {
>>  		struct expression **v;
>> @@ -2522,8 +2523,21 @@ found:
>>  		else
>>  			v = &top->ident_expression;
>>  
>> -		if (handle_simple_initializer(v, 1, lclass, top->ctype))
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Temporarily copy storage modifiers down from
>> +		 * surrounding type such that
>> +		 * handle_simple_initializer() can check
>> +		 * initializations of subobjects with static storage
>> +		 * duration.
>> +		 */
>> +		old_modifiers = top->ctype->ctype.modifiers;
>> +		top->ctype->ctype.modifiers =
>> +			old_modifiers | (ctype->ctype.modifiers & MOD_STORAGE);
>> +		if (handle_simple_initializer(v, 1, lclass, top->ctype)) {
>> +			top->ctype->ctype.modifiers = old_modifiers;
>>  			continue;
>> +		}
>> +		top->ctype->ctype.modifiers = old_modifiers;
>
> I don't understand why saving the mods is needed.
> It feels hackish to me. Isn't it because something is done wrongly at another
> level or maybe handle_simple_initializer() need an additional arg or so?

I haven't addressed this one yet, so: giving handle_simple_initializer()
an additional flag won't suffice since it can recursively call into
handle_list_initializer() again. Thus, handle_simple_initializer() would
need an additional argument, too. Plus we'd need a enw entry point
examining the top level modifiers for staticness.

I thought it would be much easier and straight forward to temporarily
flag the elements of an initializer list as static if the parent is in
global context.

The "temporarily" in there is of course argueable...

>> @@ -2633,6 +2647,16 @@ static int handle_simple_initializer(struct expression **ep, int nested,
> ...
>> +			warning(e->pos, "initializer for static storage duration object is not a constant expression");
>
> This is quite longish message.
> What about something like "non-constant initializer"?
>
>> diff --git a/lib.c b/lib.c
>> --- a/lib.c
>> +++ b/lib.c
>> @@ -241,6 +241,7 @@ int Wtypesign = 0;
>>  int Wundef = 0;
>>  int Wuninitialized = 1;
>>  int Wvla = 1;
>> +int Wstatic_initializer_not_const = 0;
>
> Here also it's quite longish. Yes I'm a lazy typer :)
> What about simply -Wconst-initializer ?
>   
> One thing that could be added (later and in another patch) is to 
> set it by default when the C99 variant is selected.
>
>>  enum {
>> diff --git a/lib.h b/lib.h
>> index 15b69fa..1b38db2 100644
>> --- a/lib.h
>> +++ b/lib.h
>> @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ extern int Wtypesign;
>>  extern int Wundef;
>>  extern int Wuninitialized;
>>  extern int Wvla;
>> -
>> +extern int Wstatic_initializer_not_const;
>
> Better to leave the blank line where it was.
>
>
>
> Luc

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-02-01  3:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-01-25 14:47 [PATCH v2 00/13] improve constexpr handling Nicolai Stange
2016-01-25 14:49 ` [PATCH v2 01/13] expression: introduce additional expression constness tracking flags Nicolai Stange
2016-01-25 21:51   ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2016-01-26 15:26     ` Nicolai Stange
2016-01-26 15:37       ` Nicolai Stange
2016-01-25 14:51 ` [PATCH v2 02/13] expression: examine constness of casts at evaluation only Nicolai Stange
2016-01-25 22:02   ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2016-01-26 16:11     ` Nicolai Stange
2016-01-25 14:52 ` [PATCH v2 03/13] expression: examine constness of binops and alike " Nicolai Stange
2016-01-26  0:14   ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2016-01-26 15:50     ` Nicolai Stange
2016-01-26 17:24       ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2016-01-27 10:42         ` Nicolai Stange
2016-01-27 18:00           ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2016-01-26  0:59   ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2016-01-25 14:53 ` [PATCH v2 04/13] expression: examine constness of preops " Nicolai Stange
2016-01-26  1:10   ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2016-01-25 14:55 ` [PATCH v2 05/13] expression: examine constness of conditionals " Nicolai Stange
2016-01-26  1:16   ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2016-01-25 14:56 ` [PATCH v2 06/13] expression, evaluate: add support for recognizing address constants Nicolai Stange
2016-01-26  1:27   ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2016-01-26  3:10   ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2016-01-25 14:57 ` [PATCH v2 07/13] evaluate: check static storage duration objects' intializers' constness Nicolai Stange
2016-01-26  1:42   ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2016-01-26 16:08     ` Nicolai Stange
2016-01-26 17:56       ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2016-01-26 20:18         ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2016-02-01  3:00     ` Nicolai Stange [this message]
2016-01-25 14:59 ` [PATCH v2 08/13] expression: recognize references to labels as address constants Nicolai Stange
2016-01-26  1:45   ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2016-01-25 15:00 ` [PATCH v2 09/13] expression: examine constness of __builtin_offsetof at evaluation only Nicolai Stange
2016-01-26  1:57   ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2016-02-01  3:06     ` Nicolai Stange
2016-01-25 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 10/13] symbol: flag builtins constant_p, safe_p and warning as constexprs Nicolai Stange
2016-01-26  2:00   ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2016-01-25 15:03 ` [PATCH v2 11/13] evaluate: relax some constant expression rules for pointer expressions Nicolai Stange
2016-01-26  2:05   ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2016-01-25 15:04 ` [PATCH v2 12/13] expression, evaluate: support compound literals as address constants Nicolai Stange
2016-01-26  2:07   ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2016-01-25 15:05 ` [PATCH v2 13/13] symbol: do not inherit storage modifiers from base types at examination Nicolai Stange
2016-01-26  2:54   ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2016-01-25 21:01 ` [PATCH v2 00/13] improve constexpr handling Luc Van Oostenryck
2016-01-25 21:26   ` Nicolai Stange

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87y4b5f83h.fsf@gmail.com \
    --to=nicstange@gmail.com \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com \
    --cc=sparse@chrisli.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).