On Tue, 23 Dec 2014, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2014, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
> > > > > first working case:
> > > > > ===================
> > > > >
> > > > > @c@
> > > > > expression cmp;
> > > > > position p;
> > > > > @@
> > > > >
> > > > > init_completion@p(cmp)
> > > > >
> > > > > @d@
> > > > > expression E,c.cmp;
> > > > > identifier f;
> > > > > position c.p,p1;
> > > > > @@
> > > > >
> > > > > init_completion@p(cmp)
> > > > > ...
> > > > > (
> > > > > E = cmp
> > > > > |
> > > > > E = &cmp
> > > > > |
> > > > > f(..., cmp,...)
> > > > > |
> > > > > f(..., &cmp,...)
> > > > > )
> > > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you want <+... ...+> here, if these assignments or function
> > > > calls
> > > > could occur more than once?
> > >
> > > fixed.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > - init_completion@p1(cmp)
> > > > > + reinit_completion1(cmp)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2nd working case:
> > > > > =================
> > > > >
> > > > > @c@
> > > > > expression cmp;
> > > > > position p;
> > > > > @@
> > > > >
> > > > > init_completion@p(cmp)
> > > > >
> > > > > @d@
> > > > > expression E,c.cmp;
> > > > > identifier f;
> > > > > position c.p,p1;
> > > > > @@
> > > > >
> > > > > init_completion@p(cmp)
> > > > > ... when != E = cmp
> > > > > when != E = &cmp
> > > > > when != f(..., cmp,...)
> > > > > when != f(..., &cmp,...)
> > > > > - init_completion@p1(cmp);
> > > >
> > > > OK. If you allow there to be none of these calls in between, then you
> > > > could merge these two rules, and change <+... ...+> to <... ...>. But I
> > > > am not really sure what is the goal of these constraints at all. Why
> > > > not
> > > > just:
> > > >
> > > > init_completion@p(cmp)
> > > > ...
> > > > init_completion@p1(cmp)
> > > >
> > >
> > > because that would match cases like
> > >
> > > init_completion(cmp)
> > > wait_for_completion(cmp)
> > > init_completion(cmp)
> >
> > Doesn't this match the "first working case" rule?
> >
>
> yes - just not sure if the first case is exhaustive - only
> if it is would the second rule in the simplified version
> be correct I believe.
I mean, wouldn't the first rule match code like:
> > > init_completion(cmp)
> > > wait_for_completion(cmp)
> > > init_completion(cmp)
and thus make a transformation that is not desired?
> tried that first then removed the r assuming it was a typo
>
> hofrat@debian:~/git/linux-next$ make coccicheck
> COCCI=false_declare_completion.cocci MODE=report
>
> Please check for false positives in the output before submitting a patch.
> When using "patch" mode, carefully review the patch before submitting it.
>
> 297 298
> Fatal error: exception Failure("meta: parse error:
> = File "false_declare_completion.cocci", line 14, column 32, charpos = 297
> around = '@', whole content = declarer name DECLARE_COMPLETION@;
> ")
There seems to be a @ at the end of the declared declarer name. You can't
use @ in a metavariable name.
julia
> same for MODE=patch
>
> > >
> > > spatch version is
> > > hofrat@debian:/tmp/linux-next$ spatch --version
> > > spatch version 1.0.0-rc21 with Python support and with Str regexp support
> > >
> > > The complete cocci script is below
> > >
> > > /* check for incorrect DECLARE_COMPLETION use within a function
> > > *
> > > * Options: --no-includes --include-headers
> > > */
> > > virtual context
> > > virtual patch
> > > virtual org
> > > virtual report
> > >
> > > /* flag incorrect initializer*/
> > > @e depends on patch && !(context || org || report)@
> > > expression cmp;
> > > identifier f;
> > > declare name DECLARE_COMPLETION;
> > > position p;
> > > @@
> > >
> > > f(...) {
> > > ...
> > > - DECLARE_COMPLETION@p(cmp);
> > > + DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(cmp);
> > > ...
> >
> > Actually, there should be <... ...> here too. Otherwise, you will allow
> > only one DECLARE_COMPLETION in the function.
> >
> > > }
> > >
> > > @ep depends on !patch && (context || org || report)@
> > > expression cmp;
> > > identifier f;
> > > declare name DECLARE_COMPLETION;
> > > position p;
> > > @@
> > >
> > > f(...) {
> > > ...
> > > * DECLARE_COMPLETION@p(cmp);
> > > ...
> > > }
> >
> > Same here.
> >
> thanks fixed this as well.
>
> thx!
> hofrat
>
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
