[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5606BEBC.4010305@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 17:50:20 +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
>> * Will a command-line parameter like "--include-headers-for-types"
>> be needed here?
>
> This argument is never needed. It is only an optimization. It means that
> he header files are only considered when collecting type information, but
> not whn doing transformation. But this argument has no effect on the set
> of types tha are available.
I would consider the reuse of the parameter "--recursive-includes" then
so that the most function signatures will be available.
This has got some consequences on the execution speed and configuration
for the source code analysis.
Are there any risks to include too many functions?
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