Re: [Cocci] Clarification for application of null pointer checks with SmPL

2020-03-11 Thread Markus Elfring
>>> pointer == NULL would have been sufficient (not related to the noted >>> problems). >> >> Should this detail be handled as an isomorphism? >> https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/19ee1697bf152d37a78a20cefe148775bf4b0e0d/standard.iso#L134 > > Yes. Unfortunately, I might stumble still

Re: [Cocci] Clarification for application of null pointer checks with SmPL

2020-03-11 Thread Julia Lawall
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > >> ... when any > >> when != pointer = \( action(...) \| x \) > >> *if ( > >> (!pointer > >> |pointer == NULL > >> ) > > > > pointer == NULL would have been sufficient (not related to the noted > > problems). > > Should this detail be

Re: [Cocci] Clarification for application of null pointer checks with SmPL

2020-03-11 Thread Markus Elfring
>> ... when any >> when != pointer = \( action(...) \| x \) >> *if ( >> (!pointer >> |pointer == NULL >> ) > > pointer == NULL would have been sufficient (not related to the noted > problems). Should this detail be handled as an isomorphism? https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/