Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Thu, 25 Jul 2019 06:34:38 -0500 (CDT) | From | Julia Lawall <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] string: Add stracpy and stracpy_pad mechanisms |
| |
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > New version. I check for non-use of the return value of strlcpy and > > address some issues that affected the matching of the case where the first > > argument involves a pointer dereference. > > I suggest to take another look at corresponding implementation details > of the shown SmPL script. > > > > \(strscpy\|strlcpy\)(e1.f, e2, i2)@p > > Can the data access operator “->” (arrow) matter also here?
What did my email say about isomorphisms?
> > > > @@ > > identifier r.i1,r.i2; > > type T; > > @@ > > struct i1 { ... T i1[i2]; ... } > > Will an additional SmPL rule name be helpful for this part?
Yes, sorry, it would seem that that is necessary. I will fix and resend the results.
> > > > @@ > > ( > > -x = strlcpy > > +stracpy > > (e1.f, e2 > > - , i2 > > )@p; > > ... when != x > > > > | > > I wonder about the deletion of the assignment target. > Should the setting of such a variable be usually preserved?
If it is a local variable and never subsequently used, it doesn't seem very useful.
julia
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |