> +@rs@
> +position p;
> +typedef bool, u8, u16, u32, u64, s8, s16, s32, s64;
> +{char, short int, int, long, long long, s8, s16, s32, s64} vs;
Can it matter to specify also the type modifier "signed" in this SmPL approach?
http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/docs/main_grammar005.html#ctype_qualif
> +{unsigned char, unsigned short, unsigned int, unsigned long, unsigned long long, size_t, bool, u8, u16, u32, u64} vu;
How do you think about to reformat such a data type enumeration?
> +@@
> +
> +vu@p = vs
> +
> +@r@
> +position rs.p;
> +identifier v, f;
> +statement S1, S2;
> +expression e;
> +@@
> +
> +*v@p = f(...);
Do you try to check here if the value receiver is at the same source code
position from the SmPL rule "rs"?
Regards,
Markus
--
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
