From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolai Stange Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 07/13] evaluate: check static storage duration objects' intializers' constness Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:15:33 +0100 Message-ID: <87ziwc6kze.fsf@gmail.com> References: <871tfzkcgi.fsf@gmail.com> <20160109180450.GA2718@macpro.local> <8737u6wfpj.fsf@gmail.com> <20160111180205.GD2972@macpro.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]:34986 "EHLO mail-wm0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932358AbcAKSPh (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jan 2016 13:15:37 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f67.google.com with SMTP id f206so27453589wmf.2 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:15:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20160111180205.GD2972@macpro.local> (Luc Van Oostenryck's message of "Mon, 11 Jan 2016 19:02:05 +0100") Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Luc Van Oostenryck Cc: Nicolai Stange , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org Luc Van Oostenryck writes: > On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 11:28:08PM +0100, Nicolai Stange wrote: >> Luc Van Oostenryck writes: >> >> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 01:19:09AM +0200, Nicolai Stange wrote: >> >> Initializers of static storage duration objects shall be constant >> >> expressions [6.7.8(4)]. >> >> >> >> Warn if that requirement is not met. >> >> >> >> 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. >> > >> > >> > This patch makes validation/{builtin_bswap,choose_expr}.c fail. >> > Of course, it's directly related to the purpose of the patch but >> > then the test should be adapted. >> > >> >> Yes, you are absolutely right. However, as mentioned in this RFC series' >> cover letter, I decided to leave these two failers as is "for the moment". > > It's fine then. > I just wanted to be sure that you was aware of it. > >> Certainly this is anything but best practice and I can only >> apologize for sending you half (well 97%) baken patches -- and promise >> to never do it again... > > Personally, I think that drafts are very fine. > They're the basis on which we, developers, can exchange ideas. > And your patches are far from drafts, they are already finely coocked. > > But just to be sure to avoid any misunderstanding: > you know that I'm not the maintainer, just a reviewer. Right? Yes, I know that: https://sparse.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page Btw, this remembers me of the fact that Josh Triplett is still listed as a maintainer in sparse.1 Either of {web,man}page is wrong about that. Or both are incomplete and we have actually got two maintainers here?