[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5606B837.7030608@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 17:22:31 +0200
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cocci@...teme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: assign signed result to unsigned variable
> It doesn't matter, as long as the type is available.
I suggest to make the circumstances better known when this will be the case.
>> How do you think about reuse another data type enumeration there?
>
> No idea what you mean by this.
A SmPL variable can also be connected with a data type list which is
discussed here.
>> How would you like to manage names for functions which are not defined
>> in the current source file?
>
> Why does it matter in this case?
* Will a command-line parameter like "--include-headers-for-types"
be needed here?
* Would it make sense to work with function name lists in SmPL constraints?
Will any fine-tuning be needed for the execution speed of the evolving
source code analysis?
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