>> I have shown a transformation example where a function parameter should be >> replaced >> by a previous function call. >> Thus a semicolon should be intentionally be deleted. > > That makes no sense.
This transformation part is working as expected (under constraints) already. > You can't have an expression directly following a statement. > Only statements follow other statements. This information is reasonable. Does the Coccinelle software insist on the specification of another semicolon in the SmPL script for the identification of an adjustable statement? Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
