>> I suggest to compare this output with the following source code >> transformation approach. … >> * Why are the functions “ptrace_hbp_create” and “ptrace_hbp_fill_attr_ctrl” >> presented here? > > What does "here" mean. You give two semantic patches with two sets of > output. Which is here?
Please check the relevance of the mentioned two function names once more. >> * Why is the first variable declaration from the function >> “ptrace_hbp_set_addr” >> not marked by the SmPL asterisk functionality in this test example? > > I don't know what you ae referring to so I can't answer precisely, Do you find corresponding links clearer? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c?id=08f103b9a9502974109fab47ea35ca8542c4e57a#n451 https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.3.1/source/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c#L451 > but you should know that the only connection between your first two rules > with a * > is the name of an identifier. I would expect that the selected identifier should refer to the same scope of the enclosing function implementation. > There is no guarantee that the two rules match code in the same function. Will any additional metavariables be needed to achieve this? Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
