* update to format parsing branch
@ 2020-09-30 8:35 Ben Dooks
2020-09-30 20:29 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Ben Dooks @ 2020-09-30 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sparse
I've done a rebase to v0.6.2 and put the result up at:
https://gitlab.com/CodethinkLabs/sparse bjdooks/printf-new3
Should I put this through a new round of review?
--
Ben Dooks http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer Codethink - Providing Genius
https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: update to format parsing branch
2020-09-30 8:35 update to format parsing branch Ben Dooks
@ 2020-09-30 20:29 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-09-30 20:59 ` Ben Dooks
2020-09-30 21:05 ` Ben Dooks
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Luc Van Oostenryck @ 2020-09-30 20:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Dooks; +Cc: linux-sparse
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 09:35:50AM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
> I've done a rebase to v0.6.2 and put the result up at:
>
> https://gitlab.com/CodethinkLabs/sparse bjdooks/printf-new3
Great.
It just needs a few very mnor changes:
%% diff --git a/evaluate.h b/evaluate.h
%% index a16e97036b2a..bb8ec480691c 100644
%% --- a/evaluate.h
%% +++ b/evaluate.h
%% @@ -26,10 +26,14 @@ struct symbol *evaluate_statement(struct statement *stmt);
%% // @list: the list of the symbol to be evaluated
%% void evaluate_symbol_list(struct symbol_list *list);
%%
%% -///
This is the marker for autodoc, so it needs to stay.
%% // evaluate the arguments of a function
%% +// @fn: the symbol of the prototype
%% // @argtypes: the list of the types in the prototype
%% // @args: the list of the effective arguments
%% -int evaluate_arguments(struct symbol_list *argtypes, struct expression_list *args);
%% +int evaluate_arguments(struct symbol *fn, struct symbol_list *argtypes, struct expression_list *args);
%%
%% +// check if assignment types are compatible
%% +// todo
I've removed the 'todo'
%% diff --git a/parse.c b/parse.c
%% index 31ecef0f554d..a7ab5fd6e531 100644
%% --- a/parse.c
%% +++ b/parse.c
%% @@ -377,6 +383,10 @@ static struct symbol_op attr_force_op = {
%% .attribute = attribute_force,
%% };
%%
%% +static struct symbol_op attr_format = {
To stay coherent with existent naming, I've rename this into 'attr_format_op'
%% @@ -515,6 +535,7 @@ static struct init_keyword {
%% N("_Float64", &spec_op, .type = &float64_ctype),
%% N("_Float64x", &spec_op, .type = &float64x_ctype),
%% N("_Float128", &spec_op, .type = &float128_ctype),
%% +
Removd unneeded line.
%% @@ -551,6 +572,9 @@ static struct init_keyword {
%% D("pure", &attr_fun_op, .mods = MOD_PURE),
%% A("const", &attr_fun_op, .mods = MOD_PURE),
%% D("gnu_inline", &attr_fun_op, .mods = MOD_GNU_INLINE),
%% + N("format", &attr_format),
%% + N("printf", &attr_printf_op),
%% + N("scanf", &attr_scanf_op),
I've changed the 'N' into 'D' since the underscore versions are legit and
often favored.
%% diff --git a/sparse.1 b/sparse.1
%% index 48dab7a9a5c1..e46aafdb3e5e 100644
%% --- a/sparse.1
%% +++ b/sparse.1
%% @@ -275,6 +275,15 @@ trouble.
%% Sparse does not issue these warnings by default.
%% .
%% .TP
%% +.B \-Wformat
%% +Warn about parameter mismatch to any variadic function which specifies
%% +where the format string is specified with the
%% +.BI __attribute__((format( type, message, va_start )))
%% +attribute.
%% +
%% +Sparse does not issue these warnings by default. To turn them on, use
%% +\fB\-Wno\-format\fR
%% +.TP
I've moved this one position above, between '-Wexternal-...' and -Winit-..
to keep the alphabetical order, removed some unneeded whitespace and
added a final dot.
%% diff --git a/symbol.h b/symbol.h
%% index a3ed95678ee5..47e26816430c 100644
%% --- a/symbol.h
%% +++ b/symbol.h
%% @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ enum keyword {
%% KW_STATIC = 1 << 7,
%% // KW UNUSED = 1 << 8,
%% KW_EXACT = 1 << 9,
%% + KW_FORMAT = 1 << 10,
%% };
I've just reused the UNUSED slot.
I've also exchanged patch 3 & 4 because the 3rd needed the definition of
Wformat only added in patch 4 and fixed 2 or 3 typos in the commit messages.
I've pushed these changes at gitlab.com/lucvoo/sparse-dev format-check
I've left for now the changelog parts in the commit messages but I would
prefer to not have them in the final version.
> Should I put this through a new round of review?
I'm fine with the changes (moving the check to a verify-format.c +
some changes related to excessively long lines).
I've one last request, the email address given as author is not the same
as the one used in the Signed-off-by and the copyright notice.
So, is it possible to respin the series with:
* the small changes I've made here above
* removing the changelogs from the commit messages
* using the same email address for the author and the SoB?
Thanks,
-- Luc
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: update to format parsing branch
2020-09-30 20:29 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
@ 2020-09-30 20:59 ` Ben Dooks
2020-09-30 21:37 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-09-30 21:05 ` Ben Dooks
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Ben Dooks @ 2020-09-30 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luc Van Oostenryck; +Cc: linux-sparse
On 30/09/2020 21:29, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 09:35:50AM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
>> I've done a rebase to v0.6.2 and put the result up at:
>>
>> https://gitlab.com/CodethinkLabs/sparse bjdooks/printf-new3
[snip]
> So, is it possible to respin the series with:
> * the small changes I've made here above
> * removing the changelogs from the commit messages
> * using the same email address for the author and the SoB?
Ok, will sort these out tonight.
What's the best branch to base-on for merge?
--
Ben Dooks http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer Codethink - Providing Genius
https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: update to format parsing branch
2020-09-30 20:29 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-09-30 20:59 ` Ben Dooks
@ 2020-09-30 21:05 ` Ben Dooks
2020-09-30 21:39 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Ben Dooks @ 2020-09-30 21:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luc Van Oostenryck; +Cc: linux-sparse
On 30/09/2020 21:29, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 09:35:50AM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
>> I've done a rebase to v0.6.2 and put the result up at:
>>
>> https://gitlab.com/CodethinkLabs/sparse bjdooks/printf-new3
>
> Great.
>
> I've one last request, the email address given as author is not the same
> as the one used in the Signed-off-by and the copyright notice.
>
> So, is it possible to respin the series with:
> * the small changes I've made here above
> * removing the changelogs from the commit messages
> * using the same email address for the author and the SoB?
I can't see any diffs between git-authour and the SoB in the series.
--
Ben Dooks http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer Codethink - Providing Genius
https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: update to format parsing branch
2020-09-30 20:59 ` Ben Dooks
@ 2020-09-30 21:37 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Luc Van Oostenryck @ 2020-09-30 21:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Dooks; +Cc: linux-sparse
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 09:59:12PM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On 30/09/2020 21:29, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 09:35:50AM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
> > > I've done a rebase to v0.6.2 and put the result up at:
> > >
> > > https://gitlab.com/CodethinkLabs/sparse bjdooks/printf-new3
>
> [snip]
>
> > So, is it possible to respin the series with:
> > * the small changes I've made here above
> > * removing the changelogs from the commit messages
> > * using the same email address for the author and the SoB?
>
> Ok, will sort these out tonight.
>
> What's the best branch to base-on for merge?
The one you used for your printf-new3:
24bdaac6682c ("Merge branch 'linear-fma' into next")
is perfect.
-- Luc
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: update to format parsing branch
2020-09-30 21:05 ` Ben Dooks
@ 2020-09-30 21:39 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-09-30 22:15 ` Ben Dooks
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Luc Van Oostenryck @ 2020-09-30 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Dooks; +Cc: linux-sparse
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:05:36PM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On 30/09/2020 21:29, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 09:35:50AM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
> > > I've done a rebase to v0.6.2 and put the result up at:
> > >
> > > https://gitlab.com/CodethinkLabs/sparse bjdooks/printf-new3
> >
> > Great.
> >
> > I've one last request, the email address given as author is not the same
> > as the one used in the Signed-off-by and the copyright notice.
> >
> > So, is it possible to respin the series with:
> > * the small changes I've made here above
> > * removing the changelogs from the commit messages
> > * using the same email address for the author and the SoB?
>
> I can't see any diffs between git-authour and the SoB in the series.
$ git log 5c15b086cd50
commit 5c15b086cd501633be2ad5fedeeb97c09874409a (bjdooks/bjdooks/printf-new3)
Author: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>
Date: 2018-10-30 10:36:26 +0000
add -Wformat
Add option to enable/disable format checking (and default it to off)
Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk>
The author is: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>
but the SoB is: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk>
-- Luc
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: update to format parsing branch
2020-09-30 21:39 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
@ 2020-09-30 22:15 ` Ben Dooks
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Ben Dooks @ 2020-09-30 22:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luc Van Oostenryck; +Cc: linux-sparse
On 30/09/2020 22:39, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 10:05:36PM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
>> On 30/09/2020 21:29, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 09:35:50AM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
>>>> I've done a rebase to v0.6.2 and put the result up at:
>>>>
>>>> https://gitlab.com/CodethinkLabs/sparse bjdooks/printf-new3
>>>
>>> Great.
>>>
>>> I've one last request, the email address given as author is not the same
>>> as the one used in the Signed-off-by and the copyright notice.
>>>
>>> So, is it possible to respin the series with:
>>> * the small changes I've made here above
>>> * removing the changelogs from the commit messages
>>> * using the same email address for the author and the SoB?
>>
>> I can't see any diffs between git-authour and the SoB in the series.
>
> $ git log 5c15b086cd50
> commit 5c15b086cd501633be2ad5fedeeb97c09874409a (bjdooks/bjdooks/printf-new3)
> Author: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>
> Date: 2018-10-30 10:36:26 +0000
>
> add -Wformat
>
> Add option to enable/disable format checking (and default it to off)
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk>
Ah, looks like my rebasing has re-authoured it.
--
Ben Dooks http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer Codethink - Providing Genius
https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-09-30 22:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-09-30 8:35 update to format parsing branch Ben Dooks
2020-09-30 20:29 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-09-30 20:59 ` Ben Dooks
2020-09-30 21:37 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-09-30 21:05 ` Ben Dooks
2020-09-30 21:39 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-09-30 22:15 ` Ben Dooks
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.