As I mentioned before, (x) matches all expressions. It matches everything that
(u)->mf matches and everything that (u).mf matches. So the pattern in your
second rule matches the same things as the more complicated pattern in the first
rule does.
Thanks for this clarification again.
It seems that I need to find a way to express the distinction between direct
function calls and calls to member functions unambiguously in the semantic patch
language.
Which ways of fine-tuning would be useful for the expression "x"?
On the other hand, this is not quite the case, because you have:
position p != is_assigned.p;
I reuse still an approach from your suggestions here.
I don't know what you want to do with them - ignore them? mark them?
Would you like to acknowledge that function names will need SmPL constraints
that will be different from the name list for function pointers in data structures?
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.diku.dk/mailman/listinfo/cocci
(Web access from inside DIKUs LAN only)
