On Sat, 17 Feb 2018, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am working with the following specification in some scripts for the semantic
> patch language.
>
> …
> target = action(...);
> …
>
>
> This source code search pattern shows that a return value from a function call
> should be stored somewhere. The concrete call is restricted by a selection of
> function names. Such an approach is working to some degree when restrictions
> on function call parameters can be omitted.
>
> But a safer source code analysis requires to distinguish these parameters in
> more detail.
>
> 1. How should be ensured that a specific option was not passed?
>
> 2. The parameter number becomes also relevant then.
> How should functions be split based on their signature?
I don't understand the questions. What do you mean by option? A
command-line option of Coccinelle? A particular argument of action?
For the second question, maybe you are looking for the following:
@r@
expression list[n] es;
@@
target = action(es)
Now r.n is the number of arguments to action.
julia
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
