> 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
