lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 16/16] fix handling of integer constant expressions
Al Viro wrote:-

>
> Son of a... expand_comma() cannibalizes the node, should restore ->flags
> to 0 (same as other similar suckers).
>
> > struct c { unsigned int c1: 1 ? 2: a++; };
>
> Ditto for expand_conditional, but there we should preserve the original
> ->flags instead - might be non-zero and we ought to do that after
> expanding the taken branch...
>
> From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:10:54 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] fix the missed cannibalizing simplifications
>
> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>

Now I think I only see one class of issues; the following is valid
C99 (I believe that's what you intend to follow) but being rejected:

struct a { int comma: 1 ? 2: (2, 3); };

It's invalid C90.

Neil.
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-06-27 15:39    [W:0.068 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site