>> @display@
>> identifier action;
>> type return_type;
>> @@
>> *return_type action(...)
>> {
>> ...
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(action);
…
> In this case, the problem entirely on your side. You should separate the
> two top-level declarations into two separate rules, just like any other
> two top-level declarations you would like to match.
My SmPL script example affects the understanding of the software behaviour
also around the following information.
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/a549b9f0a20e14fe9c36f45990b40dc5708ef8f2/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L1649
“…
All matching done by a SmPL rule is done intraprocedurally.
…”
* How are items represented from the global name space?
* Would the interpretation of the situation be adjusted if a macro call
and a function implementation would be moved into an other usage context
like a C++ class (or an enclosing function implementation)?
> You also need a
>
> declarer name EXPORT_SYMBOL;
>
> in the rule that you need to create for matching that part of the code.
Can it become interesting to match a macro call (or a similar
annotation/attribute)
also without the declaration of such a metavariable?
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/a549b9f0a20e14fe9c36f45990b40dc5708ef8f2/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L310
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
