[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1509261154500.2737@hadrien>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:55:46 +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:
> > Your approach finds a function definition.
>
> Yes. - I assumed that it might also be relevant.
>
>
>
> > My approach works on the call directly, using whatever type information is available.
>
> The connection between the SmPL specification "f(...)@e" and the desired return type
> was not obvious for me so far.
The nearest enclosing expression of the ) is the whole function call
itself. e will thus match the entire expression. e is declared to have
type t (where t is in practice signed int or whatever one wants to check
for).
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