[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: %destructor feedback

From: Joel E. Denny
Subject: Re: %destructor feedback
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 04:39:44 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Paul Eggert wrote:

Would (&(e)-1) solve that?

No, because that's an invalid expression: it normally has undefined
behavior, and 'lint' is within its rights to warn about it.

Invalid seems like a strong word. You mean that some lint implementations warn about pointer arithmetic on locals and params?

Why can't we simply rewrite the code so that it doesn't declare
unused variables?

Is that computable in general? I had made the assumption that there are cases where it's dependent upon user code. However, in a quick glance over the code, I didn't notice a case where it is.

Assuming this code rewrite will work, do you think it'll make it into the next release? If it won't make it in, perhaps the static global would be a reasonable temporary solution... so I can pass structs as parser parameters.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]