On Thu, 25 Jul 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:

> > New version.  I check for non-use of the return value of strlcpy and
> > address some issues that affected the matching of the case where the first
> > argument involves a pointer dereference.
>
> I suggest to take another look at corresponding implementation details
> of the shown SmPL script.
>
>
> > \(strscpy\|strlcpy\)(e1.f, e2, i2)@p
>
> Can the data access operator “->” (arrow) matter also here?

What did my email say about isomorphisms?

>
>
> > @@
> > identifier r.i1,r.i2;
> > type T;
> > @@
> > struct i1 { ... T i1[i2]; ... }
>
> Will an additional SmPL rule name be helpful for this part?

Yes, sorry, it would seem that that is necessary.  I will fix and resend
the results.

>
>
> > @@
> > (
> > -x = strlcpy
> > +stracpy
> >   (e1.f, e2
> > -    , i2
> >   )@p;
> >   ... when != x
> >
> > |
>
> I wonder about the deletion of the assignment target.
> Should the setting of such a variable be usually preserved?

If it is a local variable and never subsequently used, it doesn't seem
very useful.

julia