On Tue, 05 May 2015, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 5 May 2015, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 05 May 2015, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> > > > +@match@
> > > > +identifier f,ret;
> > > > +position p;
> > > > +type T1,T2;
> > > > +@@
> > > > +
> > > > +T1 f(...) {
> > > > + T2 ret;
> > >
Check if the signature of a function and the return value type match. This
is currently not the case in more than 2300 functions. In many cases this
mismatch will have no side-effects but in some cases it may lead to hard
to locate problems - and for readability and code understanding it is also
he
> +virtual context
> +virtual org
> +virtual report
Where do you want to reuse these variables in your SmPL scripts?
> +@match@
> +identifier f,ret;
> +position p;
> +type T1,T2;
> +@@
> +
> +T1 f(...) {
> + T2 ret;
Will it be more helpful to mark only such variable declarations
where the speci
On Tue, 5 May 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Then Coccinelle will find the cases where the types are wrong, rather than
> > requiring a test in python.
>
> Do you need a minus character in the first text column of the SmPL scripts
> then
> to mark corresponding update candidates (instead of t
On Tue, 5 May 2015, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Tue, 05 May 2015, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
> > > +@match@
> > > +identifier f,ret;
> > > +position p;
> > > +type T1,T2;
> > > +@@
> > > +
> > > +T1 f(...) {
> > > + T2 ret;
> > > +<+...
> > > +* return@p ret
> > > +;
> > > +...+>
> > > +}
> >
> > G
> Then Coccinelle will find the cases where the types are wrong, rather than
> requiring a test in python.
Do you need a minus character in the first text column of the SmPL scripts then
to mark corresponding update candidates (instead of the mentioned warning
printing)?
Regards,
Markus
On Tue, 05 May 2015, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > +@match@
> > +identifier f,ret;
> > +position p;
> > +type T1,T2;
> > +@@
> > +
> > +T1 f(...) {
> > + T2 ret;
> > +<+...
> > +* return@p ret
> > +;
> > +...+>
> > +}
>
> Given the number of results, it may seem surprising, but I think that you
> are a
> +@match@
> +identifier f,ret;
> +position p;
> +type T1,T2;
> +@@
> +
> +T1 f(...) {
> + T2 ret;
> +<+...
> +* return@p ret
> +;
> +...+>
> +}
Given the number of results, it may seem surprising, but I think that you
are actually missing a lot of results. Becaue you require that ret be the
firs
>> How do you think about to import the result list into a database table?
>
> working on that "re-cycling" your parameter count example
> top 10:
> 488 ssize_t != int
> 195 int != unsigned int
> 183 long != int
…
Would you like to provide a static source code analysis
directly in su
On Tue, 5 May 2015, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Tue, 05 May 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>
> > > Check if the signature of a function and the return value type match.
> >
> > Is this a task that is usually performed by a compiler?
> >
> >
> > > In many cases this mismatch will have no side-eff
On Tue, 05 May 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Check if the signature of a function and the return value type match.
>
> Is this a task that is usually performed by a compiler?
>
>
> > In many cases this mismatch will have no side-effects
> > but in some cases it may lead to hard to locate p
> Check if the signature of a function and the return value type match.
Is this a task that is usually performed by a compiler?
> In many cases this mismatch will have no side-effects
> but in some cases it may lead to hard to locate problems
It is another software development challenge to find
12 matches
Mail list logo
