On Thu, 12 Sep 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > - for (I = TAILQ_FIRST(H); I != NULL; I = TAILQ_NEXT(I, N)) S
> > + TAILQ_FOREACH(I, H, N) S
>
> Can it make sense to avoid touching the (compound) statement at the end
> so that only the loop header would be replaced?
>
> -for (I = TAILQ_FIRST(H); I != NULL; I = TAILQ_NEXT(I, N))
> +TAILQ_FOREACH(I, H, N)
> S
This does indeed seem to avoid the problem. Nevertheless, it is useful to
have the problem reported in the first place.
julia
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
