[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CDE80E8.6060601@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:13:28 +0100
From: Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
CC: Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cocci@...u.dk, Lionel Debroux <lionel_debroux@...oo.fr>,
Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>
Subject: Re: [Cocci] Re: status of constification
>>> What would the right approach be? It is not obvious to find 100% of the
>>> header files, because some of them depend on information in Makefiles.
>>
>> For 100% coverage you can look at how the Linux Makefiles invoke sparse.
>
> I haven't looked at it, but I doubt it gives 100% coverage, because one
> can have code in both the if and else branches of an ifdef. I would
> imagine that it gives 100% coverage for whatever architecture you would be
> compiling for?
For my purposes it's enough to find all includes for a given .config.
What would be also useful is if Coccinelle could somehow ignore ifdef's that
guard code blocks so that it would analyse all code in a translation unit.
Thanks Emese
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists