> I'm not sure what is the goal of your semantic patch. The shown pattern should not be a patch at this time. ;-)
I try to find functions by this approach that do not perform validation for a specific input parameter usually because this parameter will be forwarded as the return value. > For example are you only interested in pointers? No. - But I imagine that pointers will be specified more often in corresponding function signatures than integral data types. > Another thing that could be helpful is to check if there exists the > pattern you are looking for, before checking whether it is found on all > execution paths. You can use the same rule you have, but with exists in > the header, and then have a second rule that checks all paths and depends > on the first one. Would you like to show your fine-tuning suggestion in the affected SmPL script? > Also, since you just want to find returns, but don't care about what > happens in between, you can use arguments like --no-loops and --no-gotos. Will it matter if the relevant return statement will be executed within a loop or is also marked with a jump label? Can the five issues on which I stumbled during the source code analysis be fixed anyhow (eventually without the addtion of "--no-…" command options)? Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
