From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luc Van Oostenryck Subject: Re: [SPARSE v2 00/28] detect invalid branches Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 23:16:37 +0200 Message-ID: <20200519211637.4hjorseu675acihh@ltop.local> References: <20200519005728.84594-1-luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36102 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726283AbgESVQl (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2020 17:16:41 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x32c.google.com (mail-wm1-x32c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83016C08C5C0 for ; Tue, 19 May 2020 14:16:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x32c.google.com with SMTP id f13so645602wmc.5 for ; Tue, 19 May 2020 14:16:41 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Sparse Mailing-list On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 06:41:07PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 5:57 PM Luc Van Oostenryck > wrote: > > > > The goals of the patches in this series are: > > *) to detect such gotos at evaluation time; > > *) issue a sensible error message; > > *) avoid the linearization of functions with invalid gotos. > > Ack. Apart from that one question I had, which I didn't actually > verify whether it was a problem for the insane test-case I posted. > > I only _read_ the patches, I didn't actually apply and test them in any way. Sure, I understand that very well. I tend to give to this kind of series a decent amount of testing and its mostly fully automatic anyway (and, I think, the tests cover well most situations), but having another eye and another opinion on the patches is very much appreciated. -- Luc