[Cocci] Making conjunctions smaller

[Cocci] Making conjunctions smaller

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

I have a series of changes, and I want to only make a subsequent
change if and only if at least one of a series of previous declared
rules were matched. I can do this by depends on foo1 || foo2 || foo3
|| foo4, etc however since I have a lot of rules I was hoping I could
condense these into one. What would be the best way to do that?

This is just to reduce a long list of conjunctions to a much simpler set.

  Luis

[Cocci] Making conjunctions smaller

[Julia Lawall]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

> I have a series of changes, and I want to only make a subsequent
> change if and only if at least one of a series of previous declared
> rules were matched. I can do this by depends on foo1 || foo2 || foo3
> || foo4, etc however since I have a lot of rules I was hoping I could
> condense these into one. What would be the best way to do that?
> 
> This is just to reduce a long list of conjunctions to a much simpler set.

Disjunctions, I guess?

I guess you could make a rule that is guaranteed to match for some 
reason and put

@combined depends on a || b || c || d || e@
identifier f;
@@

f(...)

Here I match any function call, because any file of interest probably 
contains at least one.  But if possible it would be better to put a 
pattern that matches less often, because Coccinelle really will be doing 
the work of making these matches.

I think that the long list of ||s would be better.

julia

[Cocci] Making conjunctions smaller

[SF Markus Elfring]

> I can do this by depends on foo1 || foo2 || foo3|| foo4,
> etc however since I have a lot of rules

How many condition elements have you got in mind for your use case?

Does the mentioned SmPL dependency specification become inconvenient (or
challenging) occasionally?


> I was hoping I could condense these into one.

Would you like to construct dependencies by special scripts?


> This is just to reduce a long list of conjunctions to a much simpler set.

Are you eventually looking for the support of another metavariable type
in the semantic patch language?

Regards,
Markus

[Cocci] Making conjunctions smaller

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> I have a series of changes, and I want to only make a subsequent
>> change if and only if at least one of a series of previous declared
>> rules were matched. I can do this by depends on foo1 || foo2 || foo3
>> || foo4, etc however since I have a lot of rules I was hoping I could
>> condense these into one. What would be the best way to do that?
>>
>> This is just to reduce a long list of conjunctions to a much simpler set.
>
> Disjunctions, I guess?

Heh yes sorry.

> I guess you could make a rule that is guaranteed to match for some
> reason and put
>
> @combined depends on a || b || c || d || e@
> identifier f;
> @@
>
> f(...)
>
> Here I match any function call, because any file of interest probably
> contains at least one.  But if possible it would be better to put a
> pattern that matches less often, because Coccinelle really will be doing
> the work of making these matches.

I suspected this, I had used

#include ...

as I think most files has this but I was concerned over the impact as
you noted. A python way to add a virtual rule would have been another
option but it seems only iteration supports that.

> I think that the long list of ||s would be better.

OK, I'll do that.

 Luis

[Cocci] Making conjunctions smaller

[Julia Lawall]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >
> >> I have a series of changes, and I want to only make a subsequent
> >> change if and only if at least one of a series of previous declared
> >> rules were matched. I can do this by depends on foo1 || foo2 || foo3
> >> || foo4, etc however since I have a lot of rules I was hoping I could
> >> condense these into one. What would be the best way to do that?
> >>
> >> This is just to reduce a long list of conjunctions to a much simpler set.
> >
> > Disjunctions, I guess?
> 
> Heh yes sorry.
> 
> > I guess you could make a rule that is guaranteed to match for some
> > reason and put
> >
> > @combined depends on a || b || c || d || e@
> > identifier f;
> > @@
> >
> > f(...)
> >
> > Here I match any function call, because any file of interest probably
> > contains at least one.  But if possible it would be better to put a
> > pattern that matches less often, because Coccinelle really will be doing
> > the work of making these matches.
> 
> I suspected this, I had used
> 
> #include ...
> 
> as I think most files has this but I was concerned over the impact as
> you noted. A python way to add a virtual rule would have been another
> option but it seems only iteration supports that.

I don't think this would work.  You can't add virtual rules on the fly.

julia

> > I think that the long list of ||s would be better.
> 
> OK, I'll do that.
> 
>  Luis
>