[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56064D0B.8060907@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 09:45:15 +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>,
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
> Generally I want to catch all assignments of signed function result to unsigned var.
Such a static source code analysis will be useful to some degree.
> In this script I have implemented it this way:
> 1. Look for all assignments 'unsigned = signed' (rs rule).
> 2. Check if signed from rs rule looks as a function call.
I recommend to reconsider a few implementation details because I have got
the impression that this check sequence is inappropriate.
> Is there better way to do it?
I suggest to fix expression weaknesses and a design mistake in this SmPL approach.
I guess that you want to determine functions with a signed return type first
before corresponding variable assignments will be checked further.
* Would you like to collect function names for this purpose by a general analysis
of more source files?
(How do you think about to store them in a dedicated database?)
* Which couple of function calls will be interesting for you?
* Should the search approach take also recursively included files into account?
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