On Sat, 29 Jun 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> +if (x == NULL || ...) S
> >> +... when != e = (T)x
> >> + when != true x == NULL
> >
> > I wonder if this code exclusion specification is really required
> > after a null pointer was checked before.
>
> I would like to add another view for this implementation detail.
>
> The when constraint can express a software desire which can be reasonable
> to some degree. You would like to be sure that a null pointer will not occur
> after a corresponding check succeeded.
He wants to be sure that the true branch through a NULL pointer check is
not taken.
> * But I feel unsure about the circumstances under which the Coccinelle
> software
> can determine this aspect actually.
>
> * I find that it can eventually make sense only after the content of
> the local variable (which is identified by “x”) was modified.
> Thus I would find the exclusion of assignments more useful at this place.
I assume that it was added because it was found to be useful. Please
actually try things out before declaring them to be useless.
julia
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
