On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> 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 guess there is a loop around this code, so it is reachable from itself.
>
> * How can we achieve progress with such a bit of information?
>
> * Should such false positives be avoided anyhow?
>
> * Will answers to other questions become more helpful again?
>
> * Are there further development challenges to consider for the safe
> identification
> of unique statements by metavariables?
If you want to ensure that two metavariables match things in different
places, then put a position variable on each match and use apython rule
afterwards to discard the occurrences that are both in the same position.
julia_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
