> If you think about removing all u* typedefs
I became interested in the use case to consider more type definitions
besides the ones which should usually be handled for Linux source files.
> it will result in omitting u* related comparisons,
> unless you use --recursive-includes option.
How do you think about to make this source code analysis parameter configurable?
>>> +{unsigned char, unsigned short int, unsigned int, unsigned long, unsigned
>>> long long, size_t, u8, u16, u32, u64} v;
How does the data type "size_t" fit into the suggested SmPL approach?
Would you like to reuse your approach for checking of more software eventually?
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
