> It could be helpful to replace the last line by:
>
> (
>   e3 = <+...var...+>

Can this SmPL specification make sense as another when constraint?


> |
> * var = e3
> )
>
> In that case, it would also be beneficial to remove the *

I find the asterisk required here


> on the variable declaration

so that a potentially unused value is marked for the discussed
variable initialisation.


> because that will be activated regardless of which branch matches
> in the disjunction.

Will further data flow analysis influence such a view any more?

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

Reply via email to