All,
The syntax permits:
signed unsigned short long double int;
Please, read 6.7.2(2).
Semantic spoil sport.
The point I did not mention before sending the email
was the extent to which Sparse needs to check constructs
that are constraint violations and thus assumed to be checked
by the compiler.
Ok, it is possible to get weird looking stuff through sparse
without complaint, but is it worth spending time flagging it?
Surely time should be concentrated on flagging suspicious constructs
that are valid C and not in correctly handling obscure corners
of the language.
--
Derek M. Jones tel: +44 (0) 1252 520 667
Knowledge Software Ltd mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Applications Standards Conformance Testing http://www.knosof.co.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
