>> With which SmPL constructs should be ensured that a search pattern >> like “<+... f(...) ...+>” refers only to content from the same logical >> source line? >> https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/translation_phases#Phase_2 > > Please stop asking the same question over and over.
I hope that the expected and actually supported software functionality will become clearer. > In the context of a macro definition, <+... f(...) ...+> will only match > what is from the same logical source line. Does the functionality of the SmPL nest construct change according to previous source code? Are there more aspects to consider for the safe handling of physical source lines? > Because that is all that there is in a macro definition. We hope so also according to the initial clarification request for this issue. > If Coccinelle is working on a macro definition, it works only on that macro > definition. Such an expectation can eventually be fine. Did I overlook any information for this detail in the software documentation so far? https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/7cf2c23e64066d5249a64a316cc5347831f7a63f/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L1736 > If it is working on a function definition, it works only on that function > definition. Does the position of the define directive influence this view? Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
