On Sun, 5 Oct 2014, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > I'm not sure what is the goal of your semantic patch.
>
> The shown pattern should not be a patch at this time. ;-)
>
> I try to find functions by this approach that do not perform validation for a
> specific input parameter usually because this parameter will be forwarded as
> the
> return value.
>
>
> > For example are you only interested in pointers?
>
> No. - But I imagine that pointers will be specified more often in
> corresponding
> function signatures than integral data types.
>
>
> > Another thing that could be helpful is to check if there exists the
> > pattern you are looking for, before checking whether it is found on all
> > execution paths. You can use the same rule you have, but with exists in
> > the header, and then have a second rule that checks all paths and depends
> > on the first one.
>
> Would you like to show your fine-tuning suggestion in the affected SmPL
> script?
>
>
> > Also, since you just want to find returns, but don't care about what
> > happens in between, you can use arguments like --no-loops and --no-gotos.
>
> Will it matter if the relevant return statement will be executed within a loop
> or is also marked with a jump label?
>
>
> Can the five issues on which I stumbled during the source code analysis be
> fixed
> anyhow (eventually without the addtion of "--no-…" command options)?
For the timeouts, no they cannot.
julia
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
