From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754695AbbIOOoe (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:44:34 -0400 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:64911 "EHLO mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754476AbbIOOn5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:43:57 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,536,1437429600"; d="scan'208";a="177721912" Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:43:55 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: SF Markus Elfring cc: Andrzej Hajda , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Marek , Joe Perches , cocci@systeme.lip6.fr Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH] coccinelle: tests: unsigned value cannot be lesser than zero In-Reply-To: <55F82D02.5010004@users.sourceforge.net> Message-ID: References: <1442309232-5902-1-git-send-email-a.hajda@samsung.com> <55F816BC.5050407@users.sourceforge.net> <55F8204D.3080606@samsung.com> <55F82D02.5010004@users.sourceforge.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > If you think about removing all u* typedefs > > I became interested in the use case to consider more type definitions > besides the ones which should usually be handled for Linux source files. > > > > it will result in omitting u* related comparisons, > > unless you use --recursive-includes option. > > How do you think about to make this source code analysis parameter configurable? What parameter are you referring to? --recursive-includes is already a parameter. > >>> +{unsigned char, unsigned short int, unsigned int, unsigned long, unsigned long long, size_t, u8, u16, u32, u64} v; > > How does the data type "size_t" fit into the suggested SmPL approach? size_t is also unsigned. > Would you like to reuse your approach for checking of more software > eventually? He is proposing a semantic patch for inclusion in the Linux kernel source code, so it is not really necessary to consider types other than those used by the Linux kernel. People can modify the semantic patch if they want for other uses. julia