Re: [Cocci] Easy search for elements besides binary operators with SmPL
>> I find it just strange that extra parentheses are needed in such an use case >> at the moment. > > ... is used in a number of contexts in SmPL, and sometimes its use has to > be restricted to avoid parsing ambiguities. I tried to use extra parentheses for other source code search patterns. I left them “accidentally” out with undesired consequences this time. > I'm a bit surprised also that it is a problem in this case. I find such a feedback interesting then if it will influence corresponding software evolution. Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Easy search for elements besides binary operators with SmPL
On Fri, 12 May 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >>> Maybe put parentheses around the second argument. An isomorphism will > >>> drop them and you will avoid whatever parsing issue is being encountered. > >> > >> I do not observe a desired improvement after such a SmPL code adjustment. > > > > Your change is not what I suggested either. The second argument starts to > > the right of one comma and ends to the left of the next one. > > I interpreted the “second one” as belonging to the ellipsis in the binary > operator specification (for a moment). > > Now I observe that the following SmPL script variants work as desired > in principle. > > @find_last_option@ > expression target; > identifier action; > @@ > target = action(..., > ( ... > *| __GFP_NOFAIL > ) > ); > > > @find_flag@ > expression target; > identifier action; > @@ > target = action(..., > ( ... > *| __GFP_NOFAIL > | ... > ), > ...); > > > I find it just strange that extra parentheses are needed in such an use case > at the moment. ... is used in a number of contexts in SmPL, and sometimes its use has to be restricted to avoid parsing ambiguities. I'm a bit surprised also that it is a problem in this case. julia___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Easy search for elements besides binary operators with SmPL
>>> Maybe put parentheses around the second argument. An isomorphism will >>> drop them and you will avoid whatever parsing issue is being encountered. >> >> I do not observe a desired improvement after such a SmPL code adjustment. > > Your change is not what I suggested either. The second argument starts to > the right of one comma and ends to the left of the next one. I interpreted the “second one” as belonging to the ellipsis in the binary operator specification (for a moment). Now I observe that the following SmPL script variants work as desired in principle. @find_last_option@ expression target; identifier action; @@ target = action(..., ( ... *| __GFP_NOFAIL ) ); @find_flag@ expression target; identifier action; @@ target = action(..., ( ... *| __GFP_NOFAIL | ... ), ...); I find it just strange that extra parentheses are needed in such an use case at the moment. Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Easy search for elements besides binary operators with SmPL
On Fri, 12 May 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > Maybe put parentheses around the second argument. An isomorphism will > > drop them and you will avoid whatever parsing issue is being encountered. > > I do not observe a desired improvement after such a SmPL code adjustment. Your change is not what I suggested either. The second argument starts to the right of one comma and ends to the left of the next one. julia > @find@ > expression target; > identifier action; > @@ > target = action(..., > ... > *| __GFP_NOFAIL > | (...), > ...); > > > > The Coccinelle software does also not like a reduced script variant so far. > > @find@ > expression target; > identifier action; > @@ > target = action(..., > ... > *| __GFP_NOFAIL > ); > > > elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> spatch.opt > drivers/md/dm-region-hash.c > ~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor/show_use_of_nofail_as_last_option1.cocci > … > minus: parse error: > File > "/home/elfring/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor/show_use_of_nofail_as_last_option1.cocci", > line 6, column 17, charpos = 87 > around = '...', > whole content = ... > > > Do you get further ideas? > > Regards, > Markus >___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
[Cocci] Easy search for elements besides binary operators with SmPL
Hello, I would like to check also the application of elements which are used together with binary operators like the following. @find@ expression target; identifier action; @@ target = action(..., ... *| __GFP_NOFAIL | ..., ...); elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> spatch.opt drivers/md/dm-region-hash.c ~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor/show_use_of_nofail1.cocci … minus: parse error: File "/home/elfring/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor/show_use_of_nofail1.cocci", line 6, column 17, charpos = 87 around = '...', whole content = ... How should I improve my search pattern? A metavariable can already be used for the search of a function parameter at an undetermined position within a bigger list. Can similar functionality work also for binary operators? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] howto conditional match
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 5/12/2017 2:15 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 12 May 2017, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> >
> > > I have the following rule in my cocci script. Actually, want to apply the
> > > patch conditionally, ie. when type S matches one or more structure
> > > definitions. Initially I had 'struct Foo *drvr, ...' but that did not work
> > > for
> > > me. Any hints are appreciated.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Arend
> > >
> > > @@
> > > identifier func;
> > > identifier drvr;
> > > type T;
> > > expression list es;
> > > type S;
> > > @@
> > > T func(S *drvr, ...)
> >
> > struct i *drvr, where i is an identifier metavariable? I'm not sure what
> > you mean by one or more. Do you want to match more than the first
> > argument?
>
> Hi Julia,
>
> I mean that I want to apply the rule only if S is 'struct foo' or 'struct
> bar', but not 'struct other'. Or do I need separate rules for that?
OK, it is possible that you can put
struct \(foo\|bar\) *drvr
Or maybe \(struct foo\|struct bar\) *drvr. Or maybe the \( \) around the
whole parameter declaration.
julia
>
> Regards,
> Arend
> > julia
> >
> >
> > > {
> > > <...
> > > - brcmf_err(es);
> > > + brcmf_derr(drvr, es);
> > > ...>
> > > }
> > > ___
> > > Cocci mailing list
> > > Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
> > > https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
> > >
>
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] howto conditional match
On 5/12/2017 2:15 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Arend van Spriel wrote:
I have the following rule in my cocci script. Actually, want to apply the
patch conditionally, ie. when type S matches one or more structure
definitions. Initially I had 'struct Foo *drvr, ...' but that did not work for
me. Any hints are appreciated.
Regards,
Arend
@@
identifier func;
identifier drvr;
type T;
expression list es;
type S;
@@
T func(S *drvr, ...)
struct i *drvr, where i is an identifier metavariable? I'm not sure what
you mean by one or more. Do you want to match more than the first
argument?
Hi Julia,
I mean that I want to apply the rule only if S is 'struct foo' or
'struct bar', but not 'struct other'. Or do I need separate rules for that?
Regards,
Arend
julia
{
<...
- brcmf_err(es);
+ brcmf_derr(drvr, es);
...>
}
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] howto conditional match
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> I have the following rule in my cocci script. Actually, want to apply the
> patch conditionally, ie. when type S matches one or more structure
> definitions. Initially I had 'struct Foo *drvr, ...' but that did not work for
> me. Any hints are appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Arend
>
> @@
> identifier func;
> identifier drvr;
> type T;
> expression list es;
> type S;
> @@
> T func(S *drvr, ...)
struct i *drvr, where i is an identifier metavariable? I'm not sure what
you mean by one or more. Do you want to match more than the first
argument?
julia
> {
> <...
> - brcmf_err(es);
> + brcmf_derr(drvr, es);
> ...>
> }
> ___
> Cocci mailing list
> Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
> https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
>
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
[Cocci] howto conditional match
I have the following rule in my cocci script. Actually, want to apply
the patch conditionally, ie. when type S matches one or more structure
definitions. Initially I had 'struct Foo *drvr, ...' but that did not
work for me. Any hints are appreciated.
Regards,
Arend
@@
identifier func;
identifier drvr;
type T;
expression list es;
type S;
@@
T func(S *drvr, ...)
{
<...
- brcmf_err(es);
+ brcmf_derr(drvr, es);
...>
}
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
