>> @display@
>> expression x;
>> identifier f;
> You can put f != {likely,unlikely} here.

I would appreciate to achieve a better understanding how these likeliness
annotations can influence the shown source code search approach.

> Maybe there will be some false positives when x->f is in a condition
> that previously checked that x is not NULL.

Such information can become more interesting.

> Does this happen a lot?

My view is incomplete.

> If the answer to either question is no, does the problem really matter?
> If it does really matter,

I hope that the probability for false positives (because of evolving
source code searches) can be considerably reduced.

> then it is possible to solve it, by adding a previous rule that
> marks such safe dereferences with a position variable.  But I don't know
> whether it is worth it.

I am curious how corresponding software development efforts will evolve.

Cocci mailing list

Reply via email to