Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:02:45 -0800 | | From | Greg KH <> | | Subject | Re: typedefs and structs [was Re: [PATCH 16/42]: PCI: PCI Error reporting callbacks] |
| |
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 12:56:21PM -0600, linas wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 10:27:27AM -0800, Greg KH was heard to remark: > > > > 3) realy strong typing that sparse can detect. > > Am compiling now. > > > enums don't really work, as you can get away with using an integer and > > the compiler will never complain. Please use a typedef (yeah, I said > > typedef) in the way that sparse will catch any bad users of the code. > > How about typedef'ing structs?
No. Use __bitwise. See the lkml archives for how to do this properly.
> I'm not to clear on what "sparse" can do; however, in the good old days, > gcc allowed you to commit great sins when passing "struct blah *" to > subroutines, whereas it stoped you cold if you tried the same trick > with a typedef'ed "blah_t *". This got me into the habit of turning > all structs into typedefs in my personal projects. Can we expect > something similar for the kernel, and in particular, should we start > typedefing structs now?
No, never typedef a struct. That's just wrong. gcc should warn you just the same if you pass the wrong struct pointer (and all of your code builds without warnings, right?)
> (Documentation/CodingStyle doesn't mention typedef at all).
If it does, it should say not to use it at all :)
Except for this case, it's special...
thanks,
greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |