[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1509261754350.2864@hadrien>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 17:55:15 +0200 (CEST)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
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
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> * 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?
Maybe if there are conflicting definitions of the function with different
return types. This is probably not a big deal in practice.
julia
--
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