On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> I got the impression that recent extensions for the Coccinelle software could
> increase the chances to update the support for special constraints a bit more.
>
>
> > What is wrong with the rule that is shown?
>
> This SmPL specification is still working for a while.
>
> I became curious once more if there are further possibilities to select in
> a single SmPL rule if a storage-class specifier like “static” was not (!)
> specified.
> How do you think about to reduce the dependency on position variables (or
> internal
> database tables) for such source code checking?
disable optional_storage
It has probably existed for the last 10 years.
julia
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
