> It's interesting to get the function list automatically. I occasionally imported code data into list variables or even database tables.
> I'll try to parse the drivers/of/base.c file based on comments like this > "* Returns a node pointer with refcount incremented, use > * of_node_put() on it when done." > to automatically get the name of the function that needs to be checked. Will feature requests like the following become more interesting? * Advanced data processing for source code comments https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/57 * Add a metavariable for the handling of source code https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/140 > We will continue to analyze the code of coccinelle How will the understanding evolve for the OCaml source code of this software? > to confirm whether this false positive is a bug in coccinelle. I am also curious on how the corresponding clarification will be continued. By the way: Yesterday I stumbled on another questionable software behaviour while trying to apply an update suggestion from our development discussion on the topic “[v6] coccinelle: semantic code search for missing put_device()”. https://lore.kernel.org/cocci/201902191014156680...@zte.com.cn/ https://systeme.lip6.fr/pipermail/cocci/2019-February/005620.html > But this statement is currently needed here. Will the need be reconsidered? I got another development concern here: You propose to use a SmPL conjunction in the rule “r1”. How does it fit to the previous exclusion specification “when != of_node_put(x)”? Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
