bugGNU cflow - Bugs: bug #61645, Issues with our codebase

 
 

bug #61645: Issues with our codebase

Submitter:  None
Submitted:  Wed 08 Dec 2021 08:37:05 PM UTC
 
Category:  None Severity:  3 - Normal
Item Group:  None Status:  None
Privacy:  Public Assigned to:  None
Open/Closed:  Open
* Mandatory Fields

Add a New Comment (Rich Markup)
   

Comment Type & Canned Response:
       No canned response available

 

Wed 08 Dec 2021 08:37:05 PM UTC, original submission:  

Hi,

I'm trying to get cflow up and going on our codebase.  Due to the way the code works in order to get the info I want I need to use the --cpp option and use arm-none-eabi-gcc -E <big -I include list>.  Unfortunately, it seems to be skipping some of our call trees from some of the source files. 

It's not clear to me why.  When I run it I get a bunch of messages similar to this:  (some info is redacted)
cflow:/<path>:807: channel redefined
cflow:/<path>:797: this is the place of previous definition

'channel' in this case is a member of a struct that is _attributue_((packed)) and it seem to be unhappy with other packed structs that also contain that struct member.

If I turn on --debug (level 1) then I see things like this:

whoop_wsble.h:893: wsble_generic_request_cmd_t/-1 defined to } wsble_generic_request_cmd_t

where wsble_generic_request_cmd_t is an example of one those packed structs.  Seems like there may be some parsing problems happening. 

Before I create a full bug submission ( I can't provide much of our code base so I'll have to be surgical with the report) can you help me understand what the -1 refers to for the 'wsble_generic_request_cmd_t/-1' statement and if you think it's expected for the '}' to be include in the 'defined to' output?

Thanks.

Anonymous

 

(Note: upload size limit is set to 16384 kB, after insertion of the required escape characters.)

Attach Files:
   
   
Comment:
   

No files currently attached

 

Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found

 

CC list is empty

 

There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.

Only logged-in users can vote.

 

 

 

 

No changes have been made to this item

Back to the top


Powered by Savane 3.9