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 _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
