On Sat, 17 Feb 2018, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >>> f(...,<+...__GFP_NOWARN...+>,...) > >> > >> Does this SmPL specification mean that the identifier can appear anywhere > >> within the function call parameters? > > > > Yes. > > > >> Would it be acceptable for a risk level of false positives to omit > >> the check for the really appropriate parameter position? > > > > Up to you to see what happens. > > Thanks for another clarification. > > Does it increase the chances to integrate any SmPL scripts > for transformation of questionable error messages after > failed memory allocations into a directory which you maintain? > > Which confidence categorisation would fit here? Low. The script has no idea whether the printed string is useful or not. julia _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
