From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752924AbbIONHJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:07:09 -0400
Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:26363 "EHLO
	mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751633AbbIONHH (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:07:07 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,536,1437429600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="177697373"
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:07:05 +0200 (CEST)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
cc: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>, Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coccinelle: tests: unsigned value cannot be lesser than
 zero
In-Reply-To: <55F816BC.5050407@users.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1509151505240.2537@hadrien>
References: <1442309232-5902-1-git-send-email-a.hajda@samsung.com> <55F816BC.5050407@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: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org



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