From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: julia.lawall@lip6.fr (Julia Lawall)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:45:03 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Cocci] [PATCH] coccinelle: assign signed result to unsigned
	variable
In-Reply-To: <56066866.1060602@users.sourceforge.net>
References: <1443099286-16559-1-git-send-email-a.hajda@samsung.com>
 <56041BE5.5010005@users.sourceforge.net> <56051D2B.5040802@samsung.com>
 <56064D0B.8060907@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1509261106040.2737@hadrien>
 <56066866.1060602@users.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1509261144270.2737@hadrien>
To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
List-Id: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr



On Sat, 26 Sep 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> > To collect function calls that have a return value of a given type t,
> > it should be sufficient to do the following:
> >
> > @@
> > t e;
> > identifier f;
> > @@
> >
> > f(...)@e
>
> Is such a SmPL approach better than a variant like the following?
>
> @find_function@
> type t;
> identifier f;
> @@
>  t f(...)
>  { ... }

Your approach finds a function definition.  My approach works on the call
directly, using whatever type information is available.

julia