Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 29 Jun 2019 09:49:04 +0200 (CEST) | From | Julia Lawall <> | Subject | Re: [v2] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing of_node_put |
| |
On Sat, 29 Jun 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> +if (x == NULL || ...) S > >> +... when != e = (T)x > >> + when != true x == NULL > > > > I wonder if this code exclusion specification is really required > > after a null pointer was checked before. > > I would like to add another view for this implementation detail. > > The when constraint can express a software desire which can be reasonable > to some degree. You would like to be sure that a null pointer will not occur > after a corresponding check succeeded.
He wants to be sure that the true branch through a NULL pointer check is not taken.
> * But I feel unsure about the circumstances under which the Coccinelle software > can determine this aspect actually. > > * I find that it can eventually make sense only after the content of > the local variable (which is identified by “x”) was modified. > Thus I would find the exclusion of assignments more useful at this place.
I assume that it was added because it was found to be useful. Please actually try things out before declaring them to be useless.
julia
| |