>>> +@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
> According to my tests it does not matter.
> Btw I should replace short int, with short,
I have got an other view on such an implementation detail around
explicit SmPL specifications.
> to allow catch short intergers.
Do you assume that the Coccinelle software will handle more data type
variants for you automatically?
>>> +@@
>>> +
>>> +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"?
> Yes.
I imagine that there is an open issue in this SmPL approach then.
How should a return value from a function call and a variable access
work at the same place?
> Is there better way to do it?
Do you need to distinguish source code positions a bit more with
corresponding SmPL variables?
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
