On Fri, 12 Apr 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have tried another small SmPL script out.
>
>
> @display@
> identifier work;
> statement s1, s2;
> type T;
> @@
>  T work(...)
>  {
>  ... when any
> *{
>     ... when any
> *   s1
> *   s2
> *}
>  ... when any
>  }
>
>
> I have observed then that the following diff hunk was generated.
>
>
> elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> spatch ~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor/show_last_two_statements_in_a_block.cocci drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_ethss.c|less
> …
> @@ -3015,11 +2859,6 @@ static int init_slave(struct gbe_priv *g
>         }
>
>         if (of_property_read_u32(node, "link-interface",
> -                                &slave->link_interface)) {
> -               dev_warn(gbe_dev->dev,
> -                        "missing link-interface value defaulting to 1G mac-phy link\n");
> -               slave->link_interface = SGMII_LINK_MAC_PHY;
> -       }
>
>         slave->node = node;
>         slave->open = false;
> …
>
>
> Now I wonder about the suggested change for the if statement here.
> Should any more software adjustments be considered so that it will be avoided
> to delete only a questionable part from a function call within a condition check?

I don't understand the problem.  You put *s on the { } and two statements,
and you get - on the lines that contain the { } and the two statements.
Nothing is being deleted anyway.  The -s are just a concise way to
indicate the lines on which you requested a match with the *s.  If you
want something more fine grained, use position variables and implement the
display you want in python code.

julia

>
> Regards,
> Markus
> _______________________________________________
> Cocci mailing list
> Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
> https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
>