From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754669AbaB0EIv (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Feb 2014 23:08:51 -0500 Received: from na3sys009aog108.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.199]:48611 "HELO na3sys009aog108.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752908AbaB0EIu (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Feb 2014 23:08:50 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 20:00:50 -0800 From: Ben Pfaff To: Joe Perches Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Christopher Li , Josh Triplett , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] sparse: Allow override of sizeof(bool) warning Message-ID: <20140227040050.GA8449@nicira.com> References: <530E6F76.1070605@zytor.com> <1393462087.24588.50.camel@joe-AO722> <530E8C2E.7080307@zytor.com> <1393466619.24588.65.camel@joe-AO722> <20140227022857.GC23659@thin> <1393469594.24588.71.camel@joe-AO722> <20140227025845.GA25145@thin> <530EB103.5070406@zytor.com> <1393472326.24588.82.camel@joe-AO722> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1393472326.24588.82.camel@joe-AO722> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:38:46PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > (adding Ben Pfaff and Christopher Li) > > On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 19:29 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > On 02/26/2014 06:58 PM, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 06:53:14PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > >> Allow an override to emit or not the sizeof(bool) warning > > >> Add a description to the manpage. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Joe Perches > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett > > > > > > > I have to admit that this particular warning is a bit odd to me. I'm > > wondering what kind of bugs it was intended to catch. > > > > In particular, things that incorrectly assumes the size of bool to be > > anything in particular would seem unlikely to actually use sizeof(). > > Dunno, the commit log for the commit that added it doesn't quite > match the code and is seemingly unaware that the c99 spec doesn't > specify sizeof(bool). The commit *relaxed* sparse behavior: because previously sizeof(bool) was an error. I'm not in favor of any diagnostic at all for sizeof(bool), but my recollection is that a sparse maintainer wanted it to yield one. I don't care about the particular result for sizeof(bool) as long as it matches the ABI.