Re: [Cocci] Checking influence of loops?
>>> Typically when there is a loop or goto. >> >> I find such a case distinction interesting. >> >> >>> But there is no special handling of either construct. >> >> Does this information contain a contradiction? > > No. Draw a control flow graph of a loop and see what should happen for > such a pattern. I am still curious if it can be achieved that two statements (with a SmPL ellipsis between them) will be found only at different positions. How should be excluded that two generic search specifications will be merged? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Checking influence of loops?
>>> If you have a pattern like >>> >>> AAA >>> ... >>> BBB >>> >>> The AAA and BBB might match the same code >> >> I agree to this information in principle. >> But I imagine that this source code should be found >> at different positions. > > No there is no such constraint. My software expectations might be different from your view here. >>> if there is a possible flow of execution from the match >>> of AAA to itself. >> >> I am curious on the circumstances when such details >> would be really relevant. > > Typically when there is a loop or goto. I find such a case distinction interesting. > But there is no special handling of either construct. Does this information contain a contradiction? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Checking influence of loops?
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019, Markus Elfring wrote: > >> Should two search specifications (with SmPL ellipses) between them > >> be kept separate for the desired diff output? > > > > I don't understand any of your answers precisely. > > I hope that we can come closer again to a better understanding > of the reported software situation. > > > > If you have a pattern like > > > > AAA > > ... > > BBB > > > > The AAA and BBB might match the same code > > I agree to this information in principle. > But I imagine that this source code should be found > at different positions. No there is no such constraint. > > > > if there is a possible flow of execution from the match > > of AAA to itself. > > I am curious on the circumstances when such details > would be really relevant. Typically when there is a loop or goto. But there is no special handling of either construct. julia ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Checking influence of loops?
>> Should two search specifications (with SmPL ellipses) between them >> be kept separate for the desired diff output? > > I don't understand any of your answers precisely. I hope that we can come closer again to a better understanding of the reported software situation. > If you have a pattern like > > AAA > ... > BBB > > The AAA and BBB might match the same code I agree to this information in principle. But I imagine that this source code should be found at different positions. > if there is a possible flow of execution from the match > of AAA to itself. I am curious on the circumstances when such details would be really relevant. Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Checking influence of loops?
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019, Markus Elfring wrote: > > Your ifs may be in a loop. > > Does your technology treat this control flow in special ways? > >>> > >>> No. > >> > >> Would the quoted information be irrelevant then for the discussed use case? > > > > No idea what the above means. > > It seems that there is another communication difficulty involved. > > Your feedback indicated concerns for the handling of loops > in the shown source code search results, didn't it? > > > > There are control flow paths that cause ... to connect things. > > I guess that these “connections” need further clarifications. > > > > The process of matching doesn't know if the connection is due to a loop, > > and if, a goto, or anything else. > > Should two search specifications (with SmPL ellipses) between them > be kept separate for the desired diff output? I don't understand any of your answers precisely. If you have a pattern like AAA ... BBB The AAA and BBB might match the same code if there is a possible flow of execution from the match of AAA to itself. julia___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Checking influence of loops?
> Your ifs may be in a loop. Does your technology treat this control flow in special ways? >>> >>> No. >> >> Would the quoted information be irrelevant then for the discussed use case? > > No idea what the above means. It seems that there is another communication difficulty involved. Your feedback indicated concerns for the handling of loops in the shown source code search results, didn't it? > There are control flow paths that cause ... to connect things. I guess that these “connections” need further clarifications. > The process of matching doesn't know if the connection is due to a loop, > and if, a goto, or anything else. Should two search specifications (with SmPL ellipses) between them be kept separate for the desired diff output? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Checking influence of loops?
>>> Your ifs may be in a loop. >> >> Does your technology treat this control flow in special ways? > > No. Would the quoted information be irrelevant then for the discussed use case? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
Re: [Cocci] Checking influence of loops?
> Your ifs may be in a loop. Does your technology treat this control flow in special ways? Regards, Markus ___ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
