On 11/10/2014 03:19 AM, Ola Liljedahl wrote:
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
Check patch was taken from kernel. Might be they had bad practice with
anonymous bit fields.
I also think that it might be confusing what are these fields and why
they don't used. Might be somebody
later will need them for some reason. So I think "int bad_unused" is
better than anonymous.
Thanks,
Maxim.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
