From: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com>
To: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>,
linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler*.h: Add '__' prefix and suffix to all __attribute__ #defines
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 02:38:54 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <61eb73ad-5c30-0005-5031-6584df72ad5f@ramsayjones.plus.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191028230349.xlhm42ripxktx43y@desk.local>
On 28/10/2019 23:03, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:28:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>> On Mon, 2019-10-28 at 23:15 +0100, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:59:47AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2019-10-28 at 18:37 +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>>>>> Just in case: for these ones (i.e. __CHECKER__), did you check if
>>>>> sparse handles this syntax? (I don't recall myself if it does).
>>>>>
>>>>> Other than that, thanks for the cleanup too! I can pick it up in the
>>>>> the compiler-attributes tree and put it in -next.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for asking and no, I did not until just now.
>>>> Turns out sparse does _not_ handle these changes and
>>>> the checking fails for these __<changes>__.
>>>>
>>>> sparse would have to update parse.c or the __CHECKER__
>>>> changes would need to be reverted.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps update parse.c like:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Yes, this was missing. Thanks.
>>> Can I have your SoB for this?
>>
>> I'm not sure this actually works as there's
>> some possible sparse parsing changes in the
>> use of __context__.
>
> Yes, indeed. The following shoud be squashed on top of
> your patch (not tested yet on linux side):
>
> -- Luc
>
> diff --git a/parse.c b/parse.c
> index 4464e2667..4b0a1566c 100644
> --- a/parse.c
> +++ b/parse.c
> @@ -345,6 +345,7 @@ static struct symbol_op goto_op = {
>
> static struct symbol_op __context___op = {
> .statement = parse_context_statement,
> + .attribute = attribute_context,
Hmm, so why is do we have a context_op and a __context___op?
> };
>
> static struct symbol_op range_op = {
> @@ -537,6 +538,7 @@ static struct init_keyword {
> { "while", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &while_op },
> { "do", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &do_op },
> { "goto", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &goto_op },
> + { "context", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &context_op },
> { "__context__",NS_KEYWORD, .op = &__context___op },
So, can '__context__' be used in a statement, as well as an
attribute, while 'context' can only be used in an attribute?
Confused.
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
> { "__range__", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &range_op },
> { "asm", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &asm_op },
> @@ -560,8 +562,6 @@ static struct init_keyword {
> { "__bitwise__",NS_KEYWORD, MOD_BITWISE, .op = &attr_bitwise_op },
> { "address_space",NS_KEYWORD, .op = &address_space_op },
> { "__address_space__",NS_KEYWORD, .op = &address_space_op },
> - { "context", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &context_op },
> - { "__context__",NS_KEYWORD, .op = &context_op },
> { "designated_init", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &designated_init_op },
> { "__designated_init__", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &designated_init_op },
> { "transparent_union", NS_KEYWORD, .op = &transparent_union_op },
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-29 2:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-27 22:03 Joe Perches
2019-10-28 16:12 ` Nick Desaulniers
2019-10-28 17:37 ` Miguel Ojeda
2019-10-28 17:59 ` Joe Perches
2019-10-28 18:17 ` [PATCH V2] " Joe Perches
2019-10-28 22:15 ` [PATCH] " Luc Van Oostenryck
2019-10-28 22:28 ` Joe Perches
2019-10-28 23:03 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2019-10-29 2:38 ` Ramsay Jones [this message]
2019-10-29 8:07 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2019-10-29 18:54 ` Ramsay Jones
2019-10-30 9:38 ` kbuild test robot
2019-10-30 13:45 ` kbuild test robot
2019-10-30 16:29 ` kbuild test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=61eb73ad-5c30-0005-5031-6584df72ad5f@ramsayjones.plus.com \
--to=ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com \
--cc=miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®