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