>> Take additional casts for these code exclusion specifications into account >> together with optional parentheses. > > NACK.
I find this rejection surprising. > You don't need so many type metavariables. I got an other software development opinion for this aspect. Yesterday we started to clarify consequences from the isomorphism specification “drop_cast” (for SmPL code). https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/32d3b89ad909316464344a5f61a8092d8d702321/standard.iso#L52 Information like the following influenced my design decision to add three metavariables here. elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> spatch --parse-cocci scripts/coccinelle/free/put_device.cocci … warning: iso drop_cast does not match the code below on line -1 T (T )id pure metavariable T is matched against the following nonpure code: T … > Type metavariables in the same ... can be the same. I would find it also occasionally nice when multiple SmPL ellipses can refer to identical type casts. * The under-documented “type purity” hinders this at the moment. * But I got the impression that it can be safer to distinguish these code variants better. Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
