Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756383AbXFXSo7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:44:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751516AbXFXSow (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:44:52 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:39002 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751505AbXFXSov (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:44:51 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 19:44:49 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Segher Boessenkool Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/16] fix handling of integer constant expressions Message-ID: <20070624184449.GB21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> References: <20070624174732.GZ21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1529 Lines: 47 On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 08:18:52PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >#define _IOC_TYPECHECK(t) \ > > ((sizeof(t) == sizeof(t[1]) && \ > > sizeof(t) < (1 << _IOC_SIZEBITS)) ? \ > > sizeof(t) : __invalid_size_argument_for_IOC) > >poisoning _IOW() et.al., so those who do something like > > > >static const char *v4l1_ioctls[] = { > > [_IOC_NR(VIDIOCGCAP)] = "VIDIOCGCAP", > > > >run into trouble. > > >The only reason that doesn't break gcc to hell and back is > >that gcc has unfixed bugs in that area. > > If I understand correctly what bugs you are talking about, > most (all?) of those were solved in the dark ages already > (i.e., the 3.x series). Alas, no. gcc is amazingly (and inconsistently) sloppy about the things it accepts as integer constant expressions. > >It certainly is not a valid C > > Why not? Nothing in the C standard says all your externs > have to be defined in some other translation unit you link > with AFAIK. It's not about externs. It's about things like unsigned n; int a[] = {[n - n + n - n] = 1}; And yes, gcc does eat that. With -pedantic -std=c99, at that. However, unsigned n; int a[] = {[n + n - n - n] = 1}; gets you error: nonconstant array index in initializer And that's 4.1, not 3.x... - 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/