This patch fixes type checking on function arguments that are pointers
to functions. Below is an example.
int total;
void dofunc(void (f)(int))
{
f(5);
}
void func(int z)
{
total += z;
}
main(void)
{
dofunc(func);
}
without this patch, check reports the warnings:
warning: testfunc.c:16:9: incorrect type in argument 1 (different base types)
warning: testfunc.c:16:9: expected void ( f )( ... )
warning: testfunc.c:16:9: got void ( * )( ... )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- sparse_original/evaluate.c 2003-06-03 09:00:47.000000000 -0700
+++ sparse_test/evaluate.c 2003-06-10 12:08:23.000000000 -0700
@@ -431,6 +431,17 @@
/* Ignore ARRAY/PTR differences, as long as they point to the same type */
type1 = type1 == SYM_ARRAY ? SYM_PTR : type1;
type2 = type2 == SYM_ARRAY ? SYM_PTR : type2;
+
+ if ((type1 == SYM_PTR) && (target->ctype.base_type->type == SYM_FN)) {
+ target = target->ctype.base_type;
+ type1 = SYM_FN;
+ }
+
+ if ((type2 == SYM_PTR) && (source->ctype.base_type->type == SYM_FN)) {
+ source = source->ctype.base_type;
+ type2 = SYM_FN;
+ }
+
if (type1 != type2)
return "different base types";
}
On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 15:24, Dave Olien wrote:
> This patch fixes type checking on function arguments that are pointers
> to functions. Below is an example.
>
That reduced the number of that kind of warning significantly.
[steven@spc1 testing-2.5]$ grep "different base types" build4 | grep "in argument" | wc -l
37
[steven@spc1 testing-2.5]$ grep "different base types" build5 | grep "in argument" | wc -l
4
[steven@spc1 testing-2.5]$ grep "different base types" build5 | grep "in argument"
warning: include/linux/mpage.h:24:40: incorrect type in argument 3 (different base types)
warning: include/linux/mpage.h:24:40: incorrect type in argument 3 (different base types)
warning: drivers/ide/ide.c:1872:26: incorrect type in argument 2 (different base types)
warning: drivers/ide/ide.c:1947:25: incorrect type in argument 2 (different base types)
Now, if only Linus would change this:
CHECK = /home/torvalds/parser/check
to something more reasonable like
CHECK = /usr/local/bin/check
Steven
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 04:33:20PM -0600, Steven Cole wrote:
>
> That reduced the number of that kind of warning significantly.
>
Thanks! I'm still kind of groping my way through the code, fixing
these warnings as a motivator to keep me working my way through it.
>
> Now, if only Linus would change this:
>
> CHECK = /home/torvalds/parser/check
>
> to something more reasonable like
>
> CHECK = /usr/local/bin/check
>
> Steven
>
I assume Linus has done this because the sparse library is still
a prototype, and the "check" binary is not really the intended end point
but just a simple front-end to invoke the library to test it.
I find it really easy to just over-ride this on the make command line:
make CHECK=/dmo_local/BK_TREES/sparse_original/check C=1
This makes it easy for me to test different versions of the library as
I'm making modifications either to fix a problem, or to put debug statements
into the source code to undestand it.
Combine this with a good shell that supports history editing, and it's
not really a big problem.
Dave
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Dave Olien wrote:
>
> I find it really easy to just over-ride this on the make command line:
>
> make CHECK=/dmo_local/BK_TREES/sparse_original/check C=1
Yeah. That said, I agree with the complaint and there really is no excuse
for the bad default values except for me being a lazy bastard. So I'm
checking in a "make install" target for sparse, and I'll make the default
CHECK binary be "sparse".
Linus
On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 04:06:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>So I'm
> checking in a "make install" target for sparse, and I'll make the default
> CHECK binary be "sparse".
Hi Linus,
The name "sparse" is very difficult to google for because it's a common
English word. It can also make comments and emails confusing when one
doesn't immediately know which meaning of "sparse" is being used. Perhaps
a name like "s-parse" would be more appropriate.
-Kevin
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Kevin O'Connor "BTW, IMHO we need a FAQ for |
| [email protected] 'IMHO', 'FAQ', 'BTW', etc. !" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------