> How would Coccinelle know that a pointer is expected if there is no asterisk?
SmPL expression metavariables can handle also pointer variables from C code,
can't they?
Type distinctions have got other consequences for isomorphism definitions.
Regards,
Markus
> Isomorphisms have a cost, so the provided isomorphism only converts !X to
> X == NULL when X is a pointer.
It seems that the Coccinelle software has got restrictions on
the interpretation of pointers so far.
Is a pointer recognised for application of isomorphisms by
the semantic patch language o
> If you turn off isomorphisms, it will only match exactly what you have
> written.
This setting can occasionally be appropriate.
> Isomorphisms have a cost, so the provided isomorphism only converts !X to
> X == NULL when X is a pointer. If you want to make an isomorphism that
> does somethin
> As I already told you, the isomorphisms are applied before matching
> against the C code. At that time, this information is not available.
Can the software situation be clarified also by omitting Coccinelle's
isomorphisms?
(Can this functionality be temporarily switched off for a specific SmPL
>> Example:
>> struct setkey_parm *psetkeyparm;
>
> As I already told you, the isomorphisms are applied before matching
> against the C code. At that time, this information is not available.
Under which circumstances will the Coccinelle software become able
to take available data type inform
>> Can the mentioned SmPL script variant work also without taking extra
>> software transformations by isomorphism specifications into account?
>
> Well, you already know that it doesn't. So oviously the answe is that it
> cannot.
At the moment.
> If you indicate that the expression ex is a po
> Isomorphisms happen in advance, not during the matching process.
Can the mentioned SmPL script variant work also without taking extra
software transformations by isomorphism specifications into account?
Regards,
Markus
___
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@sys
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Should an isomorphism specification like “not_ptr2” help here?
> >> https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/19ee1697bf152d37a78a20cefe148775bf4b0e0d/standard.iso#L157
> >
> > No, because Coccinelle does not know that it is a pointer.
> > How
>> Should an isomorphism specification like “not_ptr2” help here?
>> https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/19ee1697bf152d37a78a20cefe148775bf4b0e0d/standard.iso#L157
>
> No, because Coccinelle does not know that it is a pointer.
> How should it know?
Can the software determine that the exp
> In the second case, Coccinelle has no way of knowing that ex is a pointer,
Can the software support pointer expressions better?
> so it doesn't feel motivated to consider that ex should be compared to NULL.
Should an isomorphism specification like “not_ptr2” help here?
https://github.com/cocc
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A patch on a topic like “staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap: Remove redundant call
> to memset” caught also my software development attention.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/15/220
> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1089416/
> https://lor
Hello,
A patch on a topic like “staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_ap: Remove redundant call
to memset” caught also my software development attention.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/15/220
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1089416/
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190616033527.GA14062@hari-Inspiron-1545
12 matches
Mail list logo
