From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bernd Petrovitsch Subject: Re: modifier_string() inconsistency with modifiers Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 10:42:19 +0200 Message-ID: <1282466539.5200.1.camel@thorin> References: <1282300429.10440.230.camel@thorin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from esgaroth.petrovitsch.at ([78.47.184.11]:1905 "EHLO esgaroth.petrovitsch.priv.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751605Ab0HVImZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Aug 2010 04:42:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Christopher Li Cc: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org On Fre, 2010-08-20 at 16:03 -0700, Christopher Li wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:33 AM, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > > > > Well, the equivalent for "MOD_WEAK" is "[structof]" - which seems wrong > > to me. > > And the parts for "inline" also doesn't fit AFAICS. > > > > What did I actually miss? > > Nothing. We remove some bits from the modifier but forget to update > the modifier_string function. > > Care for a patch? Not a big problem. Hmm, is it prudent to use c99, e.g. for named initializers und array? Bernd -- mobile: +43 664 4416156 http://www.sysprog.at/ Linux Software Development, Consulting and Services