Frama-C-discuss mailing list archives
This page gathers the archives of the old Frama-C-discuss archives, that was hosted by Inria's gforge before its demise at the end of 2020. To search for mails newer than September 2020, please visit the page of the new mailing list on Renater.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Frama-c-discuss] *p and p[0]
- Subject: [Frama-c-discuss] *p and p[0]
- From: hollas at informatik.htw-dresden.de (Boris Hollas)
- Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:25:08 +0200
- In-reply-to: <AANLkTilI3kkIGKj5HpnwxXImAet3adtBhsWbaXop7m-c@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <AANLkTilI3kkIGKj5HpnwxXImAet3adtBhsWbaXop7m-c@mail.gmail.com>
Hello Pascal, some suggestions: - use self-evident names for variables. Ie, p_length instead of n. - use int p[] instead of int* p to make it clear that an array is processed. - in the specification, use integer instead of int. > I didn't even know that it was possible to distinguish > between *p and p[0] after normalization by CIL. That's astonishing indeed. There shouldn't be a difference between the two forms. -- Regards, Boris
- References:
- [Frama-c-discuss] *p and p[0]
- From: pascal.cuoq at gmail.com (Pascal Cuoq)
- [Frama-c-discuss] *p and p[0]
- Prev by Date: [Frama-c-discuss] *p and p[0]
- Next by Date: [Frama-c-discuss] *p and p[0]
- Previous by thread: [Frama-c-discuss] *p and p[0]
- Next by thread: [Frama-c-discuss] *p and p[0]
- Index(es):