>> The possibility remains that also your search pattern suggestion will point
>> update candidates out at other places than the implementation of the
>> mentioned
>> function “imx_pd_bind”.
>
> So many words. So little information.
This can also occasionally happen if the search approach is sim
>> @display@
>> expression x;
>> identifier f;
>
> You can put f != {likely,unlikely} here.
I would appreciate to achieve a better understanding how these likeliness
annotations can influence the shown source code search approach.
> Maybe there will be some false positives when x->f is in a cond
>> @display@
>> expression x;
>> identifier f;
>
> You can put f != {likely,unlikely} here.
Now I have got a related impression. It seems that such a search pattern
extension
affects also our unfinished clarification for the desired handling of
when constraints by SmPL ellipses.
How will this ope
Hi,
I have a simple semantic patch:
virtual patch
@@
expression buf, val;
@@
- snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "%d\n", val)
+ spgprintf_d(buf, val)
This works nearly always as expected, but not in some macros. The cases
where it is not working are those when "val" is using a parameter of
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a simple semantic patch:
>
> virtual patch
>
> @@
> expression buf, val;
> @@
> - snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "%d\n", val)
> + spgprintf_d(buf, val)
>
> This works nearly always as expected, but not in some macros. The cases
> whe
