On 6/4/20 11:57 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: > On the other hand, do you really require E to be a pointer? If you do > that, it will have to find the type of E. If E refers to a structure > field, then the type might not be available in the current function, and > you may need command line argments like --all-includes or > --recursive-includes. Is avoiding transforming the case where E is not > verified to be a pointer a concern?
It's save to use "expression E;" in this rule. Do you want me to send v3? Any thoughts about commented lines in "patch"? Maybe I do something wrong trying to use "..." it in r2? Thanks, Denis
