On 10 November 2014 13:04, Maxim Uvarov <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. And by naming the fields you enable the application to reference them. Which is what we wanted to avoid.
> > 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 _______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
