Re: [Cocci] Checking the parsing for a nested SmPL disjunction

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > I assumed that I may omit the semicolon in such a SmPL code. > Can the specification of a SmPL nest construct ever be sufficient here? > >>> > >>> No. <+... ...+> matches a subtree of an AST. For a variable > >>> initialization, there is

Re: [Cocci] Checking the parsing for a nested SmPL disjunction

I assumed that I may omit the semicolon in such a SmPL code. Can the specification of a SmPL nest construct ever be sufficient here? >>> >>> No. <+... ...+> matches a subtree of an AST. For a variable >>> initialization, there is no subtree of the AST that includes both the >>> right si

Re: [Cocci] Checking the parsing for a nested SmPL disjunction

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > >> I assumed that I may omit the semicolon in such a SmPL code. > >> Can the specification of a SmPL nest construct ever be sufficient here? > > > > No. <+... ...+> matches a subtree of an AST. For a variable > > initialization, there is no subtree

Re: [Cocci] Checking the parsing for a nested SmPL disjunction

>> I assumed that I may omit the semicolon in such a SmPL code. >> Can the specification of a SmPL nest construct ever be sufficient here? > > No. <+... ...+> matches a subtree of an AST. For a variable > initialization, there is no subtree of the AST that includes both the > right side of an = a

Re: [Cocci] Checking the parsing for a nested SmPL disjunction

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > >> <+... when any > >> (t2 y = <+... > >> ( sizeof(*(resource)) > >> | > >> * *(resource) > >> ) ...+> > > > > You are missing a ; here. > > I assumed that I may omit the semicolon in such a SmPL code. > Can the specification of a

Re: [Cocci] Checking the parsing for a nested SmPL disjunction

>> <+... when any >> (t2 y = <+... >> ( sizeof(*(resource)) >> | >> * *(resource) >> ) ...+> > > You are missing a ; here. I assumed that I may omit the semicolon in such a SmPL code. Can the specification of a SmPL nest construct ever be sufficient here? Regards, Markus __

Re: [Cocci] Checking the parsing for a nested SmPL disjunction

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > Hello, > > I have tried another small script variant out for the semantic patch language > (according to the software combination “Coccinelle 1.0.8-00131-g675b9670”). > > @display@ > type t1, t2; > expression action; > identifier resource, y; > statem

[Cocci] Checking the parsing for a nested SmPL disjunction

Hello, I have tried another small script variant out for the semantic patch language (according to the software combination “Coccinelle 1.0.8-00131-g675b9670”). @display@ type t1, t2; expression action; identifier resource, y; statement is, es; @@ t1* resource; <+... when any (t2 y = <+... (