> As we discussed earlier I have dropped idea of adding v <= 0 as it is widely
> used in checking ranges, counters, quantities.
I find that such a design decision will need more fine-tuning of the suggested
small SmPL script.
> +@r depends on context || org || report@
> +position p;
> +typedef u8, u16, u32, u64;
> +{unsigned char, unsigned short int, unsigned int, unsigned long, unsigned
> long long, size_t, u8, u16, u32, u64} v;
Is it eventually needed to mention the key word "int" also together with the
"long" data types?
> +@@
> +
> +(
> +*v@p < 0
> +|
> +*v@p >= 0
> +)
How do you think about to split this SmPL rule so that corresponding warning
messages will really fit?
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
