On Mon, 21 Sep 2020, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Can the same data processing results be achieved also with a single SmPL
> >> rule?
> >
> > There is an isomorphism related to static. Maybe optional_qualifier.
>
> I interpret the available information in the way that the isomorphism
> “optional_storage”
> affects the handling of visibility for identifiers like function names.
> https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/730dbb034559b3e549ec0b2973cd0400a3fa072f/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L125
>
>
> > That is, in the third rule, if you remove the depends on and add disable
> > optional_qualifier, then it would not match a static function.
>
> Would such a setting be better than the dependency check according to
> the SmPL rule “find_static”?
Optional_storage is indeed probably the right one.
julia
>
> How are the chances to determine functions which are not marked as “static”
> by one SmPL rule directly?
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
