Morten Welinder wrote:
quoted text
>> While we're at it, below is somewhat ugly sparse patch for detecting
>> "&& 0x" typos.
> 
> Excellent idea, and there is something to be said about a low-footprint patch
> like that.  However, if you really want to capture this kind of bugs, you would
> need to have some kind "not a boolean" or "bitfield" attribute that
> can propagate.
> For example, you would want
> 
>     if (foo && (BAR | BAZ)) ...;
> 
> with BAR and BAZ being hex constants to produce the same warning.
> 
> Incidentally, it is probably not just hex constants that deserve this treatment:
> octal constants and variations of (1 << cst) are of the same nature.  As well
> as enums defined in such manners.

Sparse has a notion of "integer constant expression" already, which it
uses to validate expressions used for things like bitfield widths or
array sizes.  I could easily have Sparse warn on any use of an integer
constant expression as an operand of || or &&.  However, I can imagine
that that might lead to some false positives when intentionally using
an integer constant expression in a condition and expecting the
compiler to optimize it out at compile time.

- Josh Triplett
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/