> Use position variables and use a second rule that forces the positions to
> be different. I already explained this.
I suggest to take another look at the provided information.
I have extended the analysis approach like the following.
@find@
identifier work;
position p1, p2;
statement s1, s2;
type T;
@@
T work(...)
{
... when any
if@p1 (...)
{
... when any
s1
s2
}
... when any
if@p2 (...)
{
... when any
s1
s2
}
... when any
}
@duplicated_code@
identifier work;
position pos != find.p2, find.p1, find.p2;
statement s1, s2;
type T;
@@
T work(...)
{
... when any
*if@p1@pos (...)
*{
... when any
* s1
* s2
*}
... when any
*if@p2 (...)
*{
... when any
* s1
* s2
*}
... when any
}
> You surely don't like it, but nothing is going to change in this direction,
> so the discussion (at least on my side) ends here.
Now I stumble on another error message.
elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor> spatch --parse-cocci
show_same_statements7.cocci
…
Variable find.p2 in duplicated_code cannot be used as both a position and a
constraint
By the way:
Will it matter that the determined source code positions are not only different
but also that one place should be before the other?
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
