>>> If you want to be sure that you aren't in a loop, >> >> I do not want to filter on this implementation detail for the shown analysis >> approach. > > I don't know what you mean by "I do not want to".
I suggest to improve this clarification by additional case distinctions. > You mean that you want results where both matched ifs are actually the same, I suggest also to adjust this interpretation. * You are right that such a special use case is shown by the update suggestion “ethernet: ti: eliminate a bit of duplicate code in gbe_probe()”. https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/4/9/979 https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1059888/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ * I would like to search for statements which were repeated (duplicated) at the end of different if branches (after varying condition checks). > because they are in a loop, Duplicate statements can occur also there. > or do you mean that you are too lazy to express this necessary information > in your rule. We have got a different understanding for the desired requirements. > In the latter case, I can't help you. I assume that this issue would need another communication approach. > If you don't want to do what is needed, then find some other tool. I hope that the software situation can be clarified and improved further. Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
