From: elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring)
To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
Subject: [Cocci] [PATCH v2] coccinelle: tests: unsigned value cannot be lesser than zero
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:56:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55F9BB79.20203@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1442409749-32700-1-git-send-email-a.hajda@samsung.com>
> As we discussed earlier I have dropped idea of adding v <= 0 as it is widely
> used in checking ranges, counters, quantities.
I find that such a design decision will need more fine-tuning of the suggested
small SmPL script.
> + at r depends on context || org || report@
> +position p;
> +typedef u8, u16, u32, u64;
> +{unsigned char, unsigned short int, unsigned int, unsigned long, unsigned long long, size_t, u8, u16, u32, u64} v;
Is it eventually needed to mention the key word "int" also together with the "long" data types?
> +@@
> +
> +(
> +*v at p < 0
> +|
> +*v at p >= 0
> +)
How do you think about to split this SmPL rule so that corresponding warning
messages will really fit?
Regards,
Markus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] coccinelle: tests: unsigned value cannot be lesser than zero
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:56:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55F9BB79.20203@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1442409749-32700-1-git-send-email-a.hajda@samsung.com>
> As we discussed earlier I have dropped idea of adding v <= 0 as it is widely
> used in checking ranges, counters, quantities.
I find that such a design decision will need more fine-tuning of the suggested
small SmPL script.
> +@r depends on context || org || report@
> +position p;
> +typedef u8, u16, u32, u64;
> +{unsigned char, unsigned short int, unsigned int, unsigned long, unsigned long long, size_t, u8, u16, u32, u64} v;
Is it eventually needed to mention the key word "int" also together with the "long" data types?
> +@@
> +
> +(
> +*v@p < 0
> +|
> +*v@p >= 0
> +)
How do you think about to split this SmPL rule so that corresponding warning
messages will really fit?
Regards,
Markus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>
Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.com>,
Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] coccinelle: tests: unsigned value cannot be lesser than zero
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:56:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55F9BB79.20203@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1442409749-32700-1-git-send-email-a.hajda@samsung.com>
> As we discussed earlier I have dropped idea of adding v <= 0 as it is widely
> used in checking ranges, counters, quantities.
I find that such a design decision will need more fine-tuning of the suggested
small SmPL script.
> +@r depends on context || org || report@
> +position p;
> +typedef u8, u16, u32, u64;
> +{unsigned char, unsigned short int, unsigned int, unsigned long, unsigned long long, size_t, u8, u16, u32, u64} v;
Is it eventually needed to mention the key word "int" also together with the "long" data types?
> +@@
> +
> +(
> +*v@p < 0
> +|
> +*v@p >= 0
> +)
How do you think about to split this SmPL rule so that corresponding warning
messages will really fit?
Regards,
Markus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-16 18:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 69+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-15 9:27 [Cocci] [PATCH] coccinelle: tests: unsigned value cannot be lesser than zero Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-15 9:27 ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-15 13:01 ` [Cocci] " SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-15 13:01 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-15 13:01 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-15 13:07 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2015-09-15 13:07 ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-15 13:07 ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-15 13:16 ` [Cocci] " SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-15 13:16 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-15 13:16 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-15 13:31 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2015-09-15 13:31 ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-15 13:31 ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-15 13:51 ` [Cocci] " Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-15 13:51 ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-15 13:51 ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-15 13:57 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2015-09-15 13:57 ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-15 13:57 ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-16 9:11 ` [Cocci] " Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-16 9:11 ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-16 9:11 ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-16 9:25 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2015-09-16 9:25 ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-16 9:25 ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-16 13:22 ` [Cocci] [PATCH v2] " Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-16 13:22 ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-16 13:33 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2015-09-16 13:33 ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-16 18:56 ` SF Markus Elfring [this message]
2015-09-16 18:56 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-16 18:56 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-15 13:42 ` [Cocci] [PATCH] " Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-15 13:42 ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-15 13:42 ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-15 14:36 ` [Cocci] " SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-15 14:36 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-15 14:36 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-15 14:43 ` [Cocci] " Julia Lawall
2015-09-15 14:43 ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-15 14:43 ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-15 14:53 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-15 14:53 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-15 14:53 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-18 5:35 ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-18 5:35 ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-18 5:35 ` Julia Lawall
2015-09-21 10:37 ` [Cocci] [PATCH v3] " Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-21 10:37 ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-21 10:37 ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-21 13:02 ` [Cocci] " SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-21 13:02 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-21 13:02 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-21 13:34 ` [Cocci] " Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-21 13:34 ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-21 13:34 ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-21 14:06 ` [Cocci] " SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-21 14:06 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-21 14:06 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-22 15:27 ` [Cocci] " SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-22 15:27 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-22 15:27 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-23 7:34 ` [Cocci] " Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-23 7:34 ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-23 7:34 ` Andrzej Hajda
2015-09-23 15:17 ` [Cocci] " SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-23 15:17 ` SF Markus Elfring
2015-09-23 15:17 ` SF Markus Elfring
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55F9BB79.20203@users.sourceforge.net \
--to=elfring@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=cocci@systeme.lip6.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.