[Cocci] Determination for the absence of an option in a function call

Julia Lawall julia.lawall at lip6.fr
Sat Feb 17 21:25:18 CET 2018



On Sat, 17 Feb 2018, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> >>> f(...,<+...__GFP_NOWARN...+>,...)
> >>
> >> Does this SmPL specification mean that the identifier can appear anywhere
> >> within the function call parameters?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> Would it be acceptable for a risk level of false positives to omit
> >> the check for the really appropriate parameter position?
> >
> > Up to you to see what happens.
>
> Thanks for another clarification.
>
> Does it increase the chances to integrate any SmPL scripts
> for transformation of questionable error messages after
> failed memory allocations into a directory which you maintain?
>
> Which confidence categorisation would fit here?

Low.  The script has no idea whether the printed string is useful or not.

julia


More information about the Cocci mailing list