On Mon, 22 Apr 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > I'm not going to debug anything that involves external tools,
> > ie your database.
>
> * Will such a restriction become interesting also for further clarifications?
>
> * Did you notice that the script variant
> “list_duplicate_statement_pairs_from_if_branches5.cocci”
> is working only by a simple combination of SmPL and Python code
> (without an extra dependency on the software “SQLAlchemy”)?
> The desired data should be imported into an ordinary Python dictionary here.
>
>
> > Note however that by converting from * to printing, you have converted the
> > ...s in your searching rule from "exists" to "forall" as the quantifier
> > over the paths.
>
> Thanks for this reminder of consequences around the asterisk functionality
> and SmPL ellipses.
>
>
> > You may want to put exists in the header of the searching rule.
>
> I can try this setting also out.
>
> Would you like to clarify the following test result?
>
> elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> time spatch
> ~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor/list_duplicate_statement_pairs_from_if_branches6.cocci
> drivers/media/dvb-frontends/stv0297.c
> …
> statement1|statement2|"function name"|"source file"|incidence
> dprintk ( "%s: readreg error (reg == 0x%02x, ret == %i)\n" , __func__ , reg ,
> ret ) ;|return - 1 ;|stv0297_readreg|drivers/media/dvb-frontends/stv0297.c|3
> dprintk ( "%s: readreg error (reg == 0x%02x, ret == %i)\n" , __func__ , reg1
> , ret ) ;|return - 1
> ;|stv0297_readregs|drivers/media/dvb-frontends/stv0297.c|3
>
> real 0m0,272s
> user 0m0,219s
> sys 0m0,052s
>
>
> Where does the added number come from for the identifier “reg1”?
It's in the source code, at a different position than the reg result.
julia
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
