On Sun, 12 Apr 2020, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >>>> @display2@
> >>>> expression check;
> >>>> position display1.p;
> >>>> statement display1.is, display1.es;
> >>>
> >>> The problem is that you inherit es. Since you inherit it, Coccinelle
> >>> considers that its presence is important, and so the isomorphism will not
> >>> eliminate it.
> >>
> >> Thanks for your explanation of such consequences by the metavariable
> >> inheritance.
>
> It seems that the specification of the inheritance for the metavariable “es”
> can be (temporarily) omitted as a workaround.
>
>
> >>> It is sufficient to make another pattern for the case with no else.
> >>
> >> I might stumble on another software design conflict (or the need
> >> for corresponding software extensions).
> >>
> >> I tried the specification of the SmPL rule “display2” out because I wanted
> >> to determine the source code which was matched by the SmPL nest construct
> >> in the SmPL rule “display1”.
> >> The specification of a SmPL disjunction in the first rule would trigger
> >> other known development difficulties (or open issues), wouldn't it?
> >
> > No idea.
>
> I would prefer to find the shown statement combination by a single SmPL rule.
> Can the matched source code from the construct “<+... e ...+>” be assigned
> to a metavariable like “check”?
(
<+... e ...+>
&
check
)
julia
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
