You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
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 <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Nicolas Schier <[email protected]>
0 commit comments