>>> Can the search for duplicated source code be improved by the means of the >>> semantic patch language? >> >> For two statements at least you could do: > > An other SmPL script variant can work to some degree.
How do you think about the relevance of the SmPL construct “<+... ...+>” for this use case? I tried my intermediate SmPL script variant a bit more. Example: elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> git checkout next-20170803 && spatch.opt ~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor/show_same_statements3.cocci fs/ubifs/lpt.c … @@ -1974,10 +1974,6 @@ again: int ret, lnum = lprops->lnum; ret = scan_cb(c, lprops, path[h].in_tree, data); - if (ret < 0) { - err = ret; - goto out; - } if (ret & LPT_SCAN_ADD) { /* Add all the nodes in path to the tree in memory */ for (h = 1; h < c->lpt_hght; h++) { Now I wonder how this test result should fit to my source code search pattern. I find also more results questionable for this Linux software module. It seems that there are only two functions which would be an acceptable match. Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci