On Thu, 9 Jun 2022, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >>> How about trying an example?
> >> You might interpret the following test result as an expected one according to
> >> your understanding of implementation details.
> >>
> >> Markus_Elfring@Sonne:/home/altes_Heim2/elfring/Projekte/Coccinelle/Probe> spatch show_address_determination_in_checks-20220609.cocci initialisation_test2-20220609.c
> >> …
> >> @@ -1,8 +1,6 @@
> >> void check(void)
> >> {
> >> int s = 1;
> >> -bool t = &s ? 0 : 1;
> >> bool u;
> >> -u = &t ? 1 : 0;
> >> }
>
>
> Can it be that special transformations (which are not represented as a parsing result
> from the application of named isomorphisms) were applied here?
>
>
>
> >> I observed that no questionable places were marked in the following source code.
> >>
> >>
> >> void check(void)
> >> {
> >> int s = 1;
> >> bool t = (&s);
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> Will this test case trigger further development considerations?
> > It seems to be doing what it should.
>
> I would expect that the usage of the address-of operator within extra parentheses
> should also be marked for reconsideration of such source code.
It's not a test expression. The bool type is not relevant.
julia
