> @@ > expression x; > constant c1,c2; > @@ > > x = c1; The SmPL manual contains the promising wording “As metavariables are bound and inherited across rules, …”. https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/c6d7554edf7c4654aeae4d33c3f040e300682f23/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L179
The mentioned binding and inheritance can still become clearer. I guess that the Coccinelle software constructs corresponding internal data structures. The application experience shows that specific matched values can be directly reused in subsequent SmPL rules already. > ( > x = c1; Can it make sense then to support the direct access to a matched item also as a constraint within the same SmPL rule? How do you think about to work with backreferences to known data for further checking (or exclusion) of such source code? > | > *x = c2; > ) Will any SmPL constraint extensions result in the consequence to construct a special metavariable type? Will the software situation evolve further around the usage of such SmPL disjunctions? Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
