[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4116e083-9e21-62d7-10b7-5cb26594144c@web.de>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 07:55:39 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc: Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Yi Wang <wang.yi59@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [4/5] Coccinelle: put_device: Extend when constraints for two
SmPL ellipses
>> A SmPL ellipsis was specified for a search approach so that additional
>> source code would be tolerated between an assignment to a local variable
>> and the corresponding null pointer check.
>>
>> But such code should be restricted.
>> * The local variable must not be reassigned there.
>> * It must also not be forwarded to an other assignment target.
>>
>> Take additional casts for these code exclusion specifications into account
>> together with optional parentheses.
>
> NACK.
Can you agree to any information which I presented in the commit message?
> You don't need so many type metavariables.
It seems that the Coccinelle software can cope also with my SmPL code addition.
You might feel uncomfortable with the suggested changes for a while.
> Type metavariables in the same ... can be the same.
Such information is good to know for the proper usage of specifications
after a SmPL ellipsis.
* Can it become required to identify involved source code placeholders
by extra metavariables?
* Would you like to clarify the probability any more how often the shown
type casts will be identical?
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists