linux-sparse.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
Cc: Sparse Mailing-list <linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/17] scope: give a scope for labels & gotos
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 17:59:18 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whoCQ9hiNsNS_PKJGt+dxhXng8+YLJ-CzGG0eESfv0f0g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200414230908.kb44bx5fgu3hzq7r@ltop.local>

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:09 PM Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +                       if (s->scope != s->declared_scope) {
>
> This comparison can never succeed for labels declared with __label__
> because s->scope is a block scope and s->declared_scope a label one.

Hold on.. I'm sure I tested it.

Oh.

What I tested wasn't what I sent you, and I'd fixed things due to the
testing but not updated the patch file.

Oops.

The test is supposed to be

                        if (s->declared_scope != label_scope) {

which is the whole point of that 'declared_scope'.

So the concept of the patch is that the 'declared_scope' (and
'label_scope') are the same kind of scope (and comparable): it is the
applicability of the label itself (either the whole function or some
sub-expression statement).

And the the visibility of the -symbol- ends up being different, and is
the s->scope thing.

But while my testing wasn't quite as limited as my wrong-version patch
implied, it _was_ limited. So it might miss some other case.

              Linus

  reply	other threads:[~2020-04-15  0:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-04-13 16:15 [PATCH 00/17] detect invalid branches at evaluation time Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-13 16:15 ` [PATCH 01/17] bad-goto: add testcase for 'jump inside discarded expression statement' Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-13 16:15 ` [PATCH 02/17] bad-goto: add testcases for linearization of invalid labels Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-13 16:15 ` [PATCH 03/17] bad-goto: add more testcases Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-13 16:15 ` [PATCH 04/17] bad-goto: do not linearize if the IR will be invalid Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-13 16:15 ` [PATCH 05/17] bad-goto: reorg test in evaluate_goto_statement() Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-13 16:15 ` [PATCH 06/17] bad-goto: simplify testing of undeclared labels Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-13 16:15 ` [PATCH 07/17] bad-goto: do not linearize function with " Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-13 16:15 ` [PATCH 08/17] bad-goto: catch labels with reserved names Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-13 16:15 ` [PATCH 09/17] scope: no memset() needed after __alloc_scope() Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-13 16:15 ` [PATCH 10/17] scope: move scope opening/ending inside compound_statement() Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-13 16:15 ` [PATCH 11/17] scope: make function scope the same as the body block scope Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-13 16:16 ` [PATCH 12/17] scope: s/{start,end}_symbol_scope/{start,end}_block_scope/ Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-13 16:16 ` [PATCH 13/17] scope: let labels have their own scope Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-13 17:30   ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-13 16:16 ` [PATCH 14/17] scope: add is_in_scope() Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-13 16:16 ` [PATCH 15/17] scope: give a scope for labels & gotos Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-13 17:52   ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-13 18:54     ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-13 19:32       ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-13 20:00         ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-13 22:40         ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-13 23:39           ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-14  7:49             ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-14 18:19               ` Linus Torvalds
2020-04-14 23:09                 ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-15  0:59                   ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2020-05-14 22:22                     ` Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-13 16:16 ` [PATCH 16/17] bad-goto: catch gotos inside expression statements Luc Van Oostenryck
2020-04-13 16:16 ` [PATCH 17/17] bad-goto: cleanup evaluate_goto() Luc Van Oostenryck

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAHk-=whoCQ9hiNsNS_PKJGt+dxhXng8+YLJ-CzGG0eESfv0f0g@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).