Commit c2f1846
committed
genksyms: restrict direct-abstract-declarator to take one parameter-type-list
While there is no more grammatical ambiguity in genksyms, the parser
logic is still inaccurate.
For example, genksyms accepts the following invalid C code:
void my_func(int ()(int));
This should result in a syntax error because () cannot be reduced to
<direct-abstract-declarator>.
( <abstract-declarator> ) can be reduced, but <abstract-declarator>
must not be empty in the following grammar from K&R [1]:
<direct-abstract-declarator> ::= ( <abstract-declarator> )
| {<direct-abstract-declarator>}? [ {<constant-expression>}? ]
| {<direct-abstract-declarator>}? ( {<parameter-type-list>}? )
Furthermore, genksyms accepts the following weird code:
void my_func(int (*callback)(int)(int)(int));
The parser allows <direct-abstract-declarator> to recursively absorb
multiple ( {<parameter-type-list>}? ), but this behavior is incorrect.
In the example above, (*callback) should be followed by at most one
(int).
[1]: https://cs.wmich.edu/~gupta/teaching/cs4850/sumII06/The%20syntax%20of%20C%20in%20Backus-Naur%20form.htm
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Nicolas Schier <n.schier@avm.de>1 parent a952986 commit c2f1846
1 file changed
Lines changed: 10 additions & 6 deletions
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
381 | 381 | | |
382 | 382 | | |
383 | 383 | | |
| 384 | + | |
| 385 | + | |
| 386 | + | |
| 387 | + | |
| 388 | + | |
| 389 | + | |
| 390 | + | |
| 391 | + | |
384 | 392 | | |
385 | 393 | | |
386 | 394 | | |
387 | 395 | | |
388 | 396 | | |
389 | 397 | | |
390 | | - | |
391 | | - | |
392 | | - | |
| 398 | + | |
393 | 399 | | |
394 | | - | |
| 400 | + | |
395 | 401 | | |
396 | | - | |
397 | | - | |
398 | 402 | | |
399 | 403 | | |
400 | 404 | | |
| |||
0 commit comments