[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f4a8c007-f572-aee1-c0a0-9f1d97be8ace@web.de>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 17:32:06 +0200
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...6.fr>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [v2] Documentation: Coccinelle: fix typos and command example
>> Do we stumble on a target conflict according to a specific technical detail?
>>
>> How do you think about to compare source code analysis results
>> from programs like “sparse” and “spatch” (by the mentioned make command)?
>
> None of that has anything to do with the current patch.
Both analysis tools can (and should be) be invoked according to
the command parameter “CHECK”.
I hope that the relationship to the compilation of a single source file
will be clarified better.
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists