Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:35:46 +0900 | From | Neil Booth <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |