Julia Lawall wrote: >> I noted you had more results in the same files. Is there a difference >> in results when you remove the asterisks before the expression? > > Actually, I'm a little puzzled by your results. None of your files seem > to be in my output (based on a check of a few examples), but that is > normal because you consider many other types. But none of my files are in > your output either. Did you just remove them to avoid being redundant, or > is your rule overlooking the simple unsigned int case? These are only the results with unsigned typedefs. I removed the previous. of the unsigned and unsigned long there were few that were not in your results. > I might have gotten a few more examples because of using the options > -all_includes -I ./include. The it takes into account more include files, > and thus has a better chance of finding structure fields that have an > unsigned int type. But that doesn't seem to account for the difference. Ok, thanks, I'll try that too. > julia To answer your other question: I'm already posting patches for the ones that should be fixed. Patches that fix things are always welcome. Regards, Roel Kluin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
