>>> Can the search for duplicated source code be improved by the means of the
>>> semantic patch language?
>>
>> For two statements at least you could do:
>
> An other SmPL script variant can work to some degree.
How do you think about the relevance of the SmPL construct “<+... ...+>”
for this use case?
I tried my intermediate SmPL script variant a bit more.
Example:
elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> git checkout next-20170803 &&
spatch.opt ~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor/show_same_statements3.cocci
fs/ubifs/lpt.c
…
@@ -1974,10 +1974,6 @@ again:
int ret, lnum = lprops->lnum;
ret = scan_cb(c, lprops, path[h].in_tree, data);
- if (ret < 0) {
- err = ret;
- goto out;
- }
if (ret & LPT_SCAN_ADD) {
/* Add all the nodes in path to the tree in memory */
for (h = 1; h < c->lpt_hght; h++) {
Now I wonder how this test result should fit to my source code search pattern.
I find also more results questionable for this Linux software module.
It seems that there are only two functions which would be an acceptable match.
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
