On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 06:11:23PM +0100, Gabriel Kerneis wrote:
> I’ll commit it as soon as I find the time to check it does not introduce any
> regression.
In fact, the check was quick:
https://github.com/kerneis/cil/commit/dd8da7722be0ed7920ce2e26548b422455acfbbd
--
Gabriel
-
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 03:46:14PM +0100, Oliver Schwahn wrote:
> I need to preserve the original function parameter types, including any
> qualifiers, for my CIL analysis. Is there a way to prevent the const
> removal and preserve type qualifiers for such non-pointer type function
> parameters?
Hi,
I have a question concerning function parameters.
Why does CIL remove the const qualifier on all function parameters with
non-pointer type?
Here is an example:
// original function
void all_const(const int a0, const long a1, const char a2)
{ ... }
// CIL output
void all_const(int a0 , long a
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 08:12:08PM +0800, 林楠 wrote:
> Suppose I have function two functions named "foo", one with weak
> attribute and one without. Seems CIL will report a confliction and
> only keep one of the two functions. To make it worse, CIL may keep the
> weak function and remove the not wea
Suppose I have function two functions named "foo", one with weak
attribute and one without. Seems CIL will report a confliction and
only keep one of the two functions. To make it worse, CIL may keep the
weak function and remove the not weak function.
---
