[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] vasnprintf: silence some clang false positives
|
From: |
Jim Meyering |
|
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] vasnprintf: silence some clang false positives |
|
Date: |
Tue, 15 Feb 2011 21:49:59 +0100 |
Paul Eggert wrote:
>>> invariant (X)?
>
> I'm not a big fan of that name, since the expressions in
> question are often not invariants. They might be preconditions
> or postconditions, for example.
True. So gl_assume (X) ?
Hmm... or gl_veritas (X)
But that's probably too obscure.
Which makes me think of simply gl_true (X).
I have a slight preference for the semantics of gl_assume.
- [PATCH] vasnprintf: silence some clang false positives, Eric Blake, 2011/02/14
- Re: [PATCH] vasnprintf: silence some clang false positives, Bruno Haible, 2011/02/14
- Re: [PATCH] vasnprintf: silence some clang false positives, Eric Blake, 2011/02/15
- Re: [PATCH] vasnprintf: silence some clang false positives, Paul Eggert, 2011/02/15
- Re: [PATCH] vasnprintf: silence some clang false positives, Ben Pfaff, 2011/02/15
- Re: [PATCH] vasnprintf: silence some clang false positives, Jim Meyering, 2011/02/15
- Re: [PATCH] vasnprintf: silence some clang false positives, Paul Eggert, 2011/02/15
- Re: [PATCH] vasnprintf: silence some clang false positives,
Jim Meyering <=
- static analysis assumption (was: Re: [PATCH] vasnprintf: silence some clang false positives), Bruce Korb, 2011/02/15
- Re: [PATCH] vasnprintf: silence some clang false positives, Bruno Haible, 2011/02/17
- Re: [PATCH] vasnprintf: silence some clang false positives, Paul Eggert, 2011/02/18