>> Now I wonder why the software “Coccinelle 1.0.6-00242-g3f038a5d” finds >> this place relevant when the function call sequence does not fit to the order >> I tried to express for a known use case. >> I would appreciate further advice. > > Because there is a loop,
This information is appropriate. But I have got difficulties to interpret it in an useful way. > and you did nothing to prevent an update to q because the free and the > dereference. I omitted an additional constraint for a simple test. > @usage@ > identifier action, member, release=~"^.+free$"; > expression context,e; > @@ > *release(context); > ... when != context = e > when any // to get all results > *action(..., (context)->member, ...) Should the SmPL construct “<+.. ...+>” work also similar to your suggestion? Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
