Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:07:05 +0200 (CEST) | From | Julia Lawall <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: tests: unsigned value cannot be lesser than zero |
| |
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > +@r depends on context || org || report@ > > +position p; > > +typedef u8, u16, u32, u64; > > Can the involved data types be restricted for unsigned types for such > a source code analysis in a more general way? > > > > +{unsigned char, unsigned short int, unsigned int, unsigned long, unsigned long long, size_t, u8, u16, u32, u64} v; > > +@@ > > + > > +( > > +*v@p < 0 > > +| > > +*v@p >= 0 > > +) > > How do you think about to use the following SmPL wording instead? > > v@p > ( > *< 0 > | > *<= 0 > )
It does not, and is not intended to, work. The branches of a disjunction should be complete expressions.
julia
| |