[Cocci] Determination for the absence of an option in a function call
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.
More information about the Cocci