On Fri, 14 Nov 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 10:18 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
> []
> > > Yes, I agree with some of the things Al Viro said
> > > there, but isn't 'type t; t *p;' a subset of
> > > "expression *e"?
>
> > No. How would
On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 10:18 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
> > Yes, I agree with some of the things Al Viro said
> > there, but isn't 'type t; t *p;' a subset of
> > "expression *e"?
> No. How would you expect it to be different.
[]
> type t means
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > I don't think that the change is desirable in all cases. There are
> > functions like kmalloc where NULL means failure and !p seems like the
> > reasonable choice. But there maybe other cases where NULL is somehow
> > a meaningful value.
>
> How
> I don't think that the change is desirable in all cases. There are
> functions like kmalloc where NULL means failure and !p seems like the
> reasonable choice. But there maybe other cases where NULL is somehow
> a meaningful value.
How do you think about to adjust checks for null pointers not
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 07:06 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > > I added a checkpatch entry for this.
> > > Maybe some cocci test like this would be useful?
> > >
> > > @@
> > > type t;
> > > t *p;
> > > @@
>
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 07:06 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
I added a checkpatch entry for this.
Maybe some cocci test like this would be useful?
@@
type t;
t *p;
@@
- p == NULL
+ !p
I don't think that the change is desirable in all cases. There are
functions like kmalloc where NULL means failure and !p seems like the
reasonable choice. But there maybe other cases where NULL is somehow
a meaningful value.
How do you think about to adjust checks for null pointers not
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
I don't think that the change is desirable in all cases. There are
functions like kmalloc where NULL means failure and !p seems like the
reasonable choice. But there maybe other cases where NULL is somehow
a meaningful value.
How do you
On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 10:18 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
Yes, I agree with some of the things Al Viro said
there, but isn't 'type t; t *p;' a subset of
expression *e?
No. How would you expect it to be different.
[]
type t means that the type
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 10:18 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
Yes, I agree with some of the things Al Viro said
there, but isn't 'type t; t *p;' a subset of
expression *e?
No. How would you expect it to
On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 07:06 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > I added a checkpatch entry for this.
> > Maybe some cocci test like this would be useful?
> >
> > @@
> > type t;
> > t *p;
> > @@
> > - p == NULL
> > + !p
> >
> > @@
> > type t;
> > t *p;
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
> I added a checkpatch entry for this.
> Maybe some cocci test like this would be useful?
>
> @@
> type t;
> t *p;
> @@
> - p == NULL
> + !p
>
> @@
> type t;
> t *p;
> @@
> - p != NULL
> + p
>
> @@
> type t;
> t *p;
> @@
> - NULL == p
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
I added a checkpatch entry for this.
Maybe some cocci test like this would be useful?
@@
type t;
t *p;
@@
- p == NULL
+ !p
@@
type t;
t *p;
@@
- p != NULL
+ p
@@
type t;
t *p;
@@
- NULL == p
+ !p
@@
type
On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 07:06 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Joe Perches wrote:
I added a checkpatch entry for this.
Maybe some cocci test like this would be useful?
@@
type t;
t *p;
@@
- p == NULL
+ !p
@@
type t;
t *p;
@@
- p != NULL
+ p
14 matches
Mail list logo
