Re: fun with declarations and definitions

From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Christopher Li <sparse@chrisli.org>
Cc: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: fun with declarations and definitions
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 04:41:56 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090203044156.GI28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <70318cbf0902021907w634ffc6dm693022b23a0eabfc@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 07:07:24PM -0800, Christopher Li wrote:
> >        } else if (base_type && base_type->type == SYM_FN) {
> > +               if (decl->next_id && decl->next_id->scope == decl->scope)
> 
> Not sure what this is trying to do. Shouldn't the next line to be indented
> if I read it correctly?

Yuck.   That's a leftover that hadn't been caught since it affects only
K&R definitions.  Kill that line...

ObDeclarationParsing: I'm sorely (_very_ sorely) tempted to claim that
gcc folks are violating GPL.  Proof: gcc/c-parse.in, around productions
for declspecs_*.  Of course, they can say that this _is_ the preferred
form for making modifications, but having such admission made in public
would be worth it...  Trying to sort out the __attribute__ handling in
there just plain hurts ;-/