On Fri, 27 Dec 2013, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > @assign@
> > expression s,var;
> > position p1,p2,p3;
> > statement S1;
> > identifier func,member;
> > @@
> >
> > ...func@p1(...){
>
> You don't need the ... before func. I guess you were worried about the
> return type, visibility modifiers, etc. You can just omit them.
>
> > ...
> > var = s->member@p2;
>
> Here there should be no semicolon. The semicolon means that the pattern
> should be a complete statement. In your code, the assignment is part of:
>
> struct transaction *t = ec->curr;
>
looks like that ; was my problem !
> so there is more to the complete statement than the assignment.
>
> > ...
> > spin_lock_irqsave@p3(s->lock,...);
>
> The example code is:
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&ec->lock, flags);
>
> It looks like what is to the left of the -> is just an expression, but it
> is not due to the relative priority of & and ->. That is, it is not
>
> (&ec) -> lock
>
> it is:
>
> &(ec -> lock)
>
> So you need the & in your pattern. If there are cases where the structure
> really contains a pointer to a lock, then you might want to put
>
> \(&s->lock\|s->lock\)
>
> in place of s->lock.
>
> Then it should be OK :)
>
thanks for the clarification - up and running.
thx!
hofrat
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
