>> 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 l
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.
> >
> > Y
>>> 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 argum
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
> 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.
@find@
expression target;
identifier action;
@@
target = action(...,
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
| ...,
...)
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 str
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
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 appre
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;
identif
10 matches
Mail list logo
