[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <55F8204D.3080606@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:42:37 +0200
From: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: tests: unsigned value cannot be lesser than
zero
On 09/15/2015 03:01 PM, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>> +@r depends on context || org || report@
>> +position p;
>> +typedef u8, u16, u32, u64;
> Can the involved data types be restricted for unsigned types for such
> a source code analysis in a more general way?
I am not sure if I understand correctly. If you think about removing all u*
typedefs it
will result in omitting u* related comparisons, unless you use
--recursive-includes option.
Another solution is to add '--include include/asm-generic/int-ll64.h' to kbuild,
surprisingly
this header file is common for all architectures :)
Regards
Andrzej
>
>
>> +{unsigned char, unsigned short int, unsigned int, unsigned long, unsigned long long, size_t, u8, u16, u32, u64} v;
>> +@@
>> +
>> +(
>> +*v@p < 0
>> +|
>> +*v@p >= 0
>> +)
> How do you think about to use the following SmPL wording instead?
>
> v@p
> (
> *< 0
> |
> *<= 0
> )
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>
--
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