On Sat, 26 Sep 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > Your approach finds a function definition. > > Yes. - I assumed that it might also be relevant. > > > > > My approach works on the call directly, using whatever type information is available. > > The connection between the SmPL specification "f(...)@e" and the desired return type > was not obvious for me so far. The nearest enclosing expression of the ) is the whole function call itself. e will thus match the entire expression. e is declared to have type t (where t is in practice signed int or whatever one wants to check for). julia -- 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
