Hi, I'm wondering why Sparse error/warning messages are often subtly corrupted. For exemple: > sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>) > > >> fs/proc/task_nommu.c:67:55: sparse: sparse: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) @@ expected struct refcount_struct const [usertype] *r @@ got sstruct refcount_struct const [usertype] *r @@ The ending part "got sstruct" is wrong, parse correctly emits "got struct". > >> fs/proc/task_nommu.c:68:43: sparse: sparse: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) @@ expected void const *objp @@ got struct sighand_struct [noderevoid const *objp @@ It's wrong here too: "got struct sighand_struct [noderevoid const *objp" It looks like starting with the 'expected' part and ending with the 'got' part. It's not something new but I never bothered to repport. It only happens with the part prefixed by '>>', I've never seen this sort of corruption in the other parts.

It's maybe related to some substitution that is made to replace ": warning:" or ": error:" by ": sparse:" but since the flag -fdiagnostic-prefix is used the result is the redundant ": sparse: sparse:".