> This is not allowed. Inside a disjunction you need to have complete terms.
Thanks for your information. I guess that another adjustment will fit to the SmPL syntax then. ( if (input) is else es | if (likely(input)) is else es ) > I'm not sure to understand your goal. If the code currently has: > > if (x != NULL) > call(x); > > then the developer does not want to execute any of the code within call if > x is NULL. Yes. - This is one of the use cases I am trying to improve. It depends on the knowledge if something unwanted will happen if a null pointer (or zero) would be passed. If it is documented for example that an implementation of the function "call" checks the condition "!= NULL", I find the same check by the caller redundant. > If you just check that there is a NULL test on x somewhere within the > definition > of call, then that is not enough to ensure that nothing is executed within > call. Would you like to suggest any more fine-tuning? > If you remove the NULL test, you could drastically change the behavior of the > program. I agree in principle. But I would like to delete redundant checks from some source files. Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
