>> How do you think about the following SmPL script example? >> >> @vz_combined >> depends on patch && !context && !org && !report@ >> type T; >> T* pointer; >> +statement S; >> expression express; >> @@ >> pointer = >> - vmalloc >> + vzalloc >> (...); >> if (!d) >> S >> -memset(d, 0, sizeof( >> ( >> -T >> | >> -*(express) >> ) >> -)); > > OK, I thought you meant to make a big disjunctions for all of the before > and after functions.
I imagine that it would be nice if the function name pairs could be specified in a more succinct format for the semantic patch language. But the discussed approach can work with a recent software version already. > This is a little better because it is bounded in size. Thanks … > But I don't understand why you have introduced the variable express. I have noticed that these two SmPL rules differed only in the source code search specification for the operator "sizeof". So I would prefer to express this small difference in the script directly. > The performance issue is that disjunctions on expressions, eg (A | B), are > implemented as (A | (!A & B)), ie with a negation of all the previous > options &d with each option. So it is better to avoid very large > disjunctions on expressions. Is the suggested SmPL disjunction still small enough for this concern? Regards, Markus
