From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: julia.lawall@lip6.fr (Julia Lawall)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 17:55:15 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Cocci] [PATCH] coccinelle: assign signed result to unsigned
	variable
In-Reply-To: <5606BEBC.4010305@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>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1509261144270.2737@hadrien>
 <56066AD4.9060306@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1509261154500.2737@hadrien>
 <560684F3.9090700@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1509261554100.2717@hadrien>
 <5606B837.7030608@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1509261728140.2864@hadrien>
 <5606BEBC.4010305@users.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1509261754350.2864@hadrien>
To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
List-Id: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr

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

> >> * Will a command-line parameter like "--include-headers-for-types"
> >>   be needed here?
> >
> > This argument is never needed.  It is only an optimization.  It means that
> > he header files are only considered when collecting type information, but
> > not whn doing transformation.  But this argument has no effect on the set
> > of types tha are available.
>
> I would consider the reuse of the parameter "--recursive-includes" then
> so that the most function signatures will be available.
> This has got some consequences on the execution speed and configuration
> for the source code analysis.
>
> Are there any risks to include too many functions?

Maybe if there are conflicting definitions of the function with different
return types.  This is probably not a big deal in practice.

julia