* MOD_TYPEDEF unused?
@ 2017-06-13 22:01 Dibyendu Majumdar
2017-06-13 22:55 ` Christopher Li
2017-06-14 1:54 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Dibyendu Majumdar @ 2017-06-13 22:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux-Sparse
Hi,
I was looking at the output of c2xml (actually modified version used
in dmrC project) - and saw that typedefs are not marked in any way.
Digging deeper I found that typedef symbols do not have the
MOD_TYPEDEF set. MOD_USERTYPE is set though.
Is there any harm in setting MOD_TYPEDEF also?
Thanks and Regards
Dibyendu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: MOD_TYPEDEF unused?
2017-06-13 22:01 MOD_TYPEDEF unused? Dibyendu Majumdar
@ 2017-06-13 22:55 ` Christopher Li
2017-06-14 1:54 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Christopher Li @ 2017-06-13 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dibyendu Majumdar; +Cc: Linux-Sparse
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Dibyendu Majumdar
<mobile@majumdar.org.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at the output of c2xml (actually modified version used
> in dmrC project) - and saw that typedefs are not marked in any way.
> Digging deeper I found that typedef symbols do not have the
> MOD_TYPEDEF set. MOD_USERTYPE is set though.
>
> Is there any harm in setting MOD_TYPEDEF also?
I take a look, nobody is actually using MOD_TYPEDEF any more.
It was used in the old code for parsing typedef types.
Of course there is no harm setting it, it might make more sense to
remove it.
Chris
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: MOD_TYPEDEF unused?
2017-06-13 22:01 MOD_TYPEDEF unused? Dibyendu Majumdar
2017-06-13 22:55 ` Christopher Li
@ 2017-06-14 1:54 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Luc Van Oostenryck @ 2017-06-14 1:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dibyendu Majumdar; +Cc: Linux-Sparse
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:01:15PM +0100, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at the output of c2xml (actually modified version used
> in dmrC project) - and saw that typedefs are not marked in any way.
> Digging deeper I found that typedef symbols do not have the
> MOD_TYPEDEF set. MOD_USERTYPE is set though.
>
> Is there any harm in setting MOD_TYPEDEF also?
Yes, MOD_TYPEDEF is not used and MOD_USERTYPE is used to 'mark'
typedefs.
I've a patch to tidy up this as well as other cleanups
of the MOD_XXXs. It will be part of the first batch of patches
after the release.
-- Luc
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-06-14 1:54 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-06-13 22:01 MOD_TYPEDEF unused? Dibyendu Majumdar
2017-06-13 22:55 ` Christopher Li
2017-06-14 1:54 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
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).