Re: [cocci] List global variables with SmPL

[Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1559 bytes --]

> It is a suboptimal version of Julia's last proposition.
> It happens that in a file a statement I expect to be matched is not detected.
> Troubleshooting the issue, I see a behavior that does not fit the model I have in my mind. This suggests to me that things (coccinelle under the hood mechanisms) are more complicated than I think.
> back to the point:
> Running the script and printing only the rule "rr", which is the same as "r" without positions, the results presents a set of entries containing the entry I'm interested in.
> Running the same script but printing only the rule "excluded", I see that the result is an empty set.
> Finally, running the script using only the "r" rule, the entry I'm interested in is not there.
> Surprisingly (for me), removing the position constraints coming from the rule "excluded" (position q != excluded.p;) from the rule "r", the entry appears.

You haven't provided tihs semantic patch, so I don't know in detail what
it does.

In my opinion, the rule excluded is completely irrelevant for this
example.  The code that you want to detect is:

const struct snd_soc_component_driver mtk_afe_pcm_platform = {
        .name           = AFE_PCM_NAME,
        .pointer        = mtk_afe_pcm_pointer,
	.pcm_construct  = mtk_afe_pcm_new,
};

{
        .name           = AFE_PCM_NAME,
        .pointer        = mtk_afe_pcm_pointer,
        .pcm_construct  = mtk_afe_pcm_new,
}

is not considered to be an ordinary expression, but rather as an
initializer.  Everything should work find if you just replace E by ...

julia