Checkpatch complains on a lot of stuff that is legitimate C... And many things are considered errors when I personally think a warning should suffice.
I also had a case where checkpatch complained (error I think) on the definition of a macro (something related to inline assembly), it expanded into multiple separate "terms" (e.g. __asm and __volatile) and recommended I put parenthesis around the definition. Except that that caused a syntax error when compiling. So checkpatch's knowledge of C and the GNU extensions is limited. -- Ola On 10 November 2014 00:39, Bill Fischofer <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm working through my patch trying to get it checkpatch clean and one of > the thingns that checkpatch is complaining about is the use of anonymous bit > fields. For example: > > struct foo { > uint32_t :2; /* We don't care about these bits */ > uing32_t goodstuff:12; /* The stuff we care about */ > .... > }. > > this is legitimate C but checkpatch flags this as an error. So we're > supposed to make up dummy names for what would otherwise be anonymous > bitfields? Not sure I understand the logic behind that. > > Any insights? > > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > lng-odp mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp > _______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
