On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > If you want to do something about a variable declaration and use, you can > > make > > a pattern that has those and ... in between. You can put some constraints > > on the control-flow path matched by the ... using when. > > Would it make sense to extend the semantic patch language for the discussed > use > case?
I don't know what are the concrete requiremens of the discussed use case, so I can't answer the question. I think the current language is quite adequate to address some instances, as described above. > How should source code adjustments that will only be needed if a previous > pattern matches be specified in SmPL? You can say that one rule depends on the success or failure of another, but putting eg depends on rule1 && !rule2 in the between the initial @@, next to the rule name, if any. This is illustrated in the wiki: http://cocci.ekstranet.diku.dk/wiki/doku.php?id=dependencies_between_patterns You can often also express dependencies between rules by inheriting metavariables. If a pattern uses a metavariable that is inherited from a previous rule, then the pattern will only match if the previous rule was successful. julia _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] http://lists.diku.dk/mailman/listinfo/cocci (Web access from inside DIKUs LAN only)
