On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:56:32PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > On Thu, 15 Dec 2011, Josh Triplett wrote: > >On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:11:32PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > >>So I think the best solution would be to stick with the separate == > >>and != rules. > > > >I guess I'd hope that an isomorphism could determine the equivalence > >between: > > > >@@ ... @@ > >- variable == 0 > >+ condition > > > >and > > > >@@ ... @@ > >- variable != 0 > >+ !condition > > > >. That seems like a fairly simple equivalence (possibly by way of an > >isomorphism between !(variable == 0) and (variable != 0)). > > It's quite a nice idea, but currently the isomorphisms only affect > the matching part of the code.
So why does it sometimes partially work? In particular, writing the patch with ==0 worked for both negative cases and the simpler positive case, and writing it with !=0 worked for all cases but produced double negatives in the negative cases. - Josh Triplett _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] http://lists.diku.dk/mailman/listinfo/cocci (Web access from inside DIKUs LAN only)
