> Then, would there be any way to match functions having the
>> literal “FUNC_ATTR_NONNULL_RET” in their declaration/definition?
>
> Would you like to try it out how many source code places can be found
> with your macro name?
This approach
```
@nonnullfuncs@ identifier func; @@
* func
(...)
... FUNC_ATTR_NONNULL_RET ...
{...}
```
matches nothing.
>> @@ identifier func =~ "^(transstr|list_alloc|listitem_alloc| [...]
>> |concat_str)$"; [...] @@
>>
>> var = func(...);
>> ... when != var = E
>> (
>> * if (var == NULL) S;
>> |
>> * if (var != NULL) S;
>> )
>
> Does this kind of SmPL disjunction make sense?
I don’t see why not. AFAIK, Disjunctions can contain a full term
(identifier/expression/statement).
Regarding meaning, well, I’m looking for places where var is checked for
nullness/non-nullnes.
That’s the most obvious way I’ve found to express that…
>> As you see, I have to replicate the list.
>>
> I would also appreciate if such repetition could be avoided for
> SmPL constraints.
I’ve tried with rule inheritance, but don’t know what to put in a first rule
that just “selects” the functions. This is:
```
@r@ identifier func =~ “…list of names… “ @@
… What here???
@@ identifier r.func @@
(
* if (func(…) == NULL) S;
|
* if (func(…) != NULL) S;
)
```
>> Is there any better way to achieve the same effect?
>
> How do you think about to construct the desired regular expression
> by other programming scripts automatically?
>
> Would you like to store involved function names into specific
> data structures (like databases)?
The purpose of my question is to see if there’s a way to do this within
coccinelle.
If there’s no such a way, then, well, I’ll definitely consider constructing
that regexp through some external script.
Thanks.
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
