@depends on !is_void@ identifier r.f != {strcpy, strcat}; identifier g; @@ g(...) {<+... * f(...); ...+>}Here, in the place of *f(...); you could write ( \(strcpy\|strcat\|printf\|signal\)(...); | *f(...); ) Where the first list could be extended with other function names. Perhaps that is what tyou are sking for below.
Do you know if there are any advantages (processing speed?) over the other approach for the specification of a well-known function list which can be excluded from corresponding source code analysis warnings?
Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] http://lists.diku.dk/mailman/listinfo/cocci (Web access from inside DIKUs LAN only)
