Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: assign signed result to unsigned variable | From | SF Markus Elfring <> | Date | Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:51:01 +0200 |
| |
>>> +@rs@ >>> +position p; >>> +typedef bool, u8, u16, u32, u64, s8, s16, s32, s64; >>> +{char, short int, int, long, long long, s8, s16, s32, s64} vs; >> Can it matter to specify also the type modifier "signed" in this SmPL approach? >> http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/docs/main_grammar005.html#ctype_qualif > According to my tests it does not matter. > Btw I should replace short int, with short,
I have got an other view on such an implementation detail around explicit SmPL specifications.
> to allow catch short intergers.
Do you assume that the Coccinelle software will handle more data type variants for you automatically?
>>> +@@ >>> + >>> +vu@p = vs >>> + >>> +@r@ >>> +position rs.p; >>> +identifier v, f; >>> +statement S1, S2; >>> +expression e; >>> +@@ >>> + >>> +*v@p = f(...); >> Do you try to check here if the value receiver is at the same source code >> position from the SmPL rule "rs"? > Yes.
I imagine that there is an open issue in this SmPL approach then. How should a return value from a function call and a variable access work at the same place?
> Is there better way to do it?
Do you need to distinguish source code positions a bit more with corresponding SmPL variables?
Regards, Markus
| |