[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55F82D02.5010004@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:36:50 +0200
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>
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
> If you think about removing all u* typedefs
I became interested in the use case to consider more type definitions
besides the ones which should usually be handled for Linux source files.
> it will result in omitting u* related comparisons,
> unless you use --recursive-includes option.
How do you think about to make this source code analysis parameter configurable?
>>> +{unsigned char, unsigned short int, unsigned int, unsigned long, unsigned long long, size_t, u8, u16, u32, u64} v;
How does the data type "size_t" fit into the suggested SmPL approach?
Would you like to reuse your approach for checking of more software eventually?
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