Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add an option to give finer-grained control of offset reporting.

[Dodji Seketeli <dodji@seketeli.org>]

Matthias Maennich <maennich@google.com> a écrit:

[...]

> I think I would like the one line of mention as I suggested. Omitting it
> conditionally introduces more logic and likely we confuse users.

Either way, we'll have to introdroce more logic anyway, so I am not
concerned about that, if, of course that is useful.

I guess what I wanted to say is that the one line mention seems like a
good idea because that example is simple.  If you have more than one
non-contiguous addition/removal/changes of data members in the struct,
then I am not sure the one liner mention is still that "relevant".  Or
maybe in that case we can avoir the one liner mention and emit the
in-extenso message as we have today?  What do you think?

> I also do not see them as redundant, just obvious and therefore a
> short form is enough to transmit this information.

Hmmh, yes, I think you are right.  The offset changes are not redundant
per se.  They just happen to be caused by the change, but they don't
necessary have to be.  Point taken.

[...]


>>Also, would it make sense to emit those qualified data member names when
>>we are analyzying a C++ program?  Or do you think it's more legible to
>>emit always emit non-qualified data member names?
>
> I think this very much applies to C structs as well. In fact, the above
> is a C example.

Yeah, I got that.  I really meant my question.  I'll re-phrase it
differently.  Do you think we should avoid removing the
full-qualification when we are analyzing c++ programs?  Or do do you
think what you are proposing for C should apply for C++ programs
equally?  I would think yes, but I am not sure.

> I think we should use the non-qualified version if we
> are in a nested block where the rest of the qualified name is already
> emitted. In the above example, we are in the block of 'task_struct'
> differences, hence we can strip that part away from
> task_struct::in_ubsan'.

This does make sense to me.

If we agree that we should change this behaviour, then maybe we should
create an enhance request for this.  Shall we?

Thanks,

Cheers,

-- 
		Dodji