While scan-build wasn't what I was looking for, it has proven useful
anyway: many of the sizeof errors were just noise, but a few were actual
bugs (allocating too much or too little memory).
If the kahan triangle area method breaks, I did something wrong with qfcc's
handling of parentheses (ie, floating point math is not truly associative).
This fixes a segfault when optimizing the empty-body test. The label was
getting moved, but the statement block to which it pointed was not updated
and thus it pointed to dead data.
Saw a discussion of such in #qc and that gcc implemented it. I realized it
would be pretty easy to detect and very useful (I've made such mistakes at
times).
It is now in its own file and uses table lookups to check for valid type
and operator combinations, and also the resulting type of the expression.
This probably breaks multiple function calls in the one expression.
This is a bit of a workaround to ensure the operands have their types
setup correctly. Really, binary_expr needs to handle expression types
properly.
This fixes the bogus error for comparing the result of pointer subtraction
with an integer.
Currently, they can represent either vectors or quaternions, and the
quaternions can be in either [s, v] form or [w, x, y, z] form.
Many things will not actual work yet as the vector expression needs to be
converted into the appropriate form for assigning the elements to the
components of the "vector" type.
It's sometimes more useful to have direct access to each individual
component of the imaginary part of the quaternion, and then for
consistency, alias w and s.
This is a nice feature found in fteqcc (also a bit of a challenge from
Spike). Getting bison to accept the new expression required rewriting the
state expression grammar, so this is mostly for the state expression. A
test to ensure the state expression doesn't break is included.
I think it may have been for compatibility with a certain qcc variant (no
idea which one, though). While the shift/reduce conflict is fixable using
"%prec IFX" on the const:string rule, the colon breaks test?"a":"b".
Putting parentheses around "a" allows such a construct, requiring them
breaks comatibility with C. I think this feature just isn't worth that.
