Hello,
I have constructed another small script for the semantic patch language.
@usage@
identifier action, member, release=~"^.+free$";
expression context;
@@
*release(context);
<+...
*action(..., (context)->member, ...)
...+>
The following source code place can be found by such a simple
On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have constructed another small script for the semantic patch language.
>
> @usage@
> identifier action, member, release=~"^.+free$";
> expression context;
> @@
> *release(context);
> <+...
> *action(..., (context)->member, ...)
>
On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> Now I wonder why the software “Coccinelle 1.0.6-00242-g3f038a5d” finds
> >> this place relevant when the function call sequence does not fit to the
> >> order
> >> I tried to express for a known use case.
> >> I would appreciate further advice.
>> Now I wonder why the software “Coccinelle 1.0.6-00242-g3f038a5d” finds
>> this place relevant when the function call sequence does not fit to the order
>> I tried to express for a known use case.
>> I would appreciate further advice.
>
> Because there is a loop,
This information is
>> But I have got difficulties to interpret it in an useful way.
>
> Coccinelle follows control-flow paths.
This information is generally fine.
> Thers is a control-flow path from the bottom of a loop back up to the top.
I can not follow with my intermediate understanding to such a view
at
> Thers is a control-flow path from the bottom of a loop back up to the top.
I wonder also about the information how an ordinary for loop could influence
the shown source code analysis result for the function “snd_seq_queue_find_name”
when the questionable marked statements are contained in a
On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Thers is a control-flow path from the bottom of a loop back up to the top.
>
> I wonder also about the information how an ordinary for loop could influence
> the shown source code analysis result for the function
> “snd_seq_queue_find_name”
>
