Please make a smaller example. In your example try to delete everything
that you can without changing what you consider to be the undesirableness
of the result. For example, I don't see what is the purpose, with respect
to illutrating the bug, of the my_operations definition, the python code,
or more of the function bodies.
In the current case, I can't see what you expect to be the third function.
julia
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
{here f is a non-void function}
I have tried out another approach for a source code analysis with the
Coccinelle software 1.0.0-rc7 on my openSUSE 12.1 system.
It corresponds also to my feature request "Support for alternative display
format of selection results".
https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/issues/6
elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/lokal/demos/return_values>
SRC=../../../Probe/f-ptr-test1b.c && cat $SRC && LINE='-----' && echo $LINE
&& PAT=select_non_void_functions.cocci && cat $PAT && echo $LINE && spatch
-sp_file $PAT $SRC
int my_safe_log(char const * text);
int my_status(void);
void my_log(char const * text)
{
/* Write something ... */
}
int my_safe_log(char const * text)
{
if (!text)
return 1;
my_log(text);
return 0;
}
char const * const my_message(void)
{
return "Surprise!";
}
int my_status(void)
{
return 1;
}
int my_addition(char a, char b);
int my_addition(char a, char b)
{
return a + b;
}
int main(void)
{
struct my_operations
{
void (*log)(char const * t);
int (*safe_log)(char const * t);
char const * const (*get_message)(void);
int (*is_ready)(void);
int (*add)(char a, char b);
} mo = {my_log, my_safe_log, my_message, my_status, my_addition}, * mop =
&mo;
char const * const x = mo.get_message();
int y = mop->is_ready();
y = mop->add(1, 2);
y = mo.add(3, 4);
mo.log(mo.get_message());
mo.is_ready();
my_safe_log(0);
mo.safe_log(0);
mop->safe_log(0);
}
-----
@initialize:python@
result = []
delimiter = '|'
@function_declaration@
identifier f;
position p;
@@
f@p(...);
@is_void@
identifier function_declaration.f;
@@
void f(...);
@script:python collection depends on !is_void@
fun << function_declaration.f;
places << function_declaration.p;
@@
for place in places:
fields = []
fields.append(fun.ident)
fields.append("declaration")
fields.append(place.file)
fields.append(place.line)
fields.append(place.column)
result.append(delimiter.join(fields))
@finalize:python@
if result:
result.insert(0, delimiter.join(["function", "action", "source file",
"line", "column"]))
print("\r\n".join(result))
else:
print("No result for this analysis!")
-----
init_defs_builtins: /usr/share/coccinelle/standard.h
HANDLING: ../../../Probe/f-ptr-test1b.c
function|action|source file|line|column
my_log|declaration|../../../Probe/f-ptr-test1b.c|14|2
my_safe_log|declaration|../../../Probe/f-ptr-test1b.c|52|2
I do not like this test result because there should be found three different
function names from my example. Do I make another mistake here in the
application of the semantic patch language?
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.diku.dk/mailman/listinfo/cocci
(Web access from inside DIKUs LAN only)
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.diku.dk/mailman/listinfo/cocci
(Web access from inside DIKUs LAN only)
