>>> Maybe put parentheses around the second argument. An isomorphism will
>>> drop them and you will avoid whatever parsing issue is being encountered.
>>
>> I do not observe a desired improvement after such a SmPL code adjustment.
>
> Your change is not what I suggested either. The second argument starts to
> the right of one comma and ends to the left of the next one.
I interpreted the “second one” as belonging to the ellipsis in the binary
operator specification (for a moment).
Now I observe that the following SmPL script variants work as desired
in principle.
@find_last_option@
expression target;
identifier action;
@@
target = action(...,
( ...
* | __GFP_NOFAIL
)
);
@find_flag@
expression target;
identifier action;
@@
target = action(...,
( ...
* | __GFP_NOFAIL
| ...
),
...);
I find it just strange that extra parentheses are needed in such an use case
at the moment.
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
