Ah, so you beat me to it Neil. ;) Out of curiosity, how much worse was it before you started fixing things?
Mark On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 01:30:37PM +1100, Neil Conway wrote: > BTW, perhaps one reason for the relatively small number of legitimate > issues picked up by sparse is that I ran sparse on the tree a month or > two ago and fixed some of the stylistic issues it reported. Most of the > stuff I didn't bother to fix looked like either a sparse bug, or a > marginal style improvement I didn't bother applying (like fixing 0 => > NULL in dllist.c). > > I've been meaning to investigate whether sparse can be used as something > more than just a fussy syntax checker (i.e. whether it can do any > meaningful static analysis for interesting properties), but I haven't > had a chance yet. > > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > It's complaining in several places about function as variables in > > function declarations (the multiple walkers and mutators for example); > > not sure how correct that is. > > I believe the conclusion of prior discussions about making the > walker/mutator prototypes more precise is that it's not worth the cost. > > -Neil > > P.S. Hope everyone had a good holiday. I'm back at work on Monday. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
