On Sun, 23 Apr 2017, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/22, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > > On Sat, 22 Apr 2017, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > It looks as if only one pattern from disjunction can match in the same > > > statement. > > > IOW, (PAT1 | PAT2) actually means (PAT1* | PAT2*), not (PAT1 | PAT2)*. > > > Say, > > > > > The idea with a disjunction is that if the first rule matches, then that > > one wins. Actually, ( A | B ) is encoded as A v (not A & B). > > OK, thanks a lot Julia! > > Does this mean that I have to write 2 separate rules if I want to track the > member > dereferences? One for "->" and another for ".", because I can't use the > "operator" > metadecl in this case. This would be safer in any case. julia _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
