[cocci] [PATCH] coccinelle: ifaddr: Find address test in more complex conditions

[cocci] [PATCH] coccinelle: ifaddr: Find address test in more complex conditions

[Jérémy LEFAURE]

The test of an expression's address does not necessarily represent the
whole condition, it may only be a part of it.
This change aims at detecting an address test in more complex conditions.

Signed-off-by: Jérémy Lefaure <jeremy.lefaure@netatmo.com>
---
 scripts/coccinelle/misc/ifaddr.cocci | 8 ++++++++
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/ifaddr.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/ifaddr.cocci
index fc92e8fcbfcb..387af44a1256 100644
--- a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/ifaddr.cocci
+++ b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/ifaddr.cocci
@@ -18,8 +18,16 @@ statement S1,S2;
 position p;
 @@
 
+(
 *if@p (&x)
  S1 else S2
+|
+*if@p (&x || ...)
+ S1 else S2
+|
+*if@p (&x && ...)
+ S1 else S2
+)
 
 @script:python depends on org@
 p << r.p;
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [cocci] [PATCH] coccinelle: ifaddr: Find address test in more complex conditions

[Markus Elfring]

> The test of an expression's address does not necessarily represent the
> whole condition, it may only be a part of it.
> This change aims at detecting an address test in more complex conditions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jérémy Lefaure <jeremy.lefaure@netatmo.com>
> ---
>  scripts/coccinelle/misc/ifaddr.cocci | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/ifaddr.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/ifaddr.cocci
> index fc92e8fcbfcb..387af44a1256 100644
> --- a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/ifaddr.cocci
> +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/ifaddr.cocci
> @@ -18,8 +18,16 @@ statement S1,S2;
>  position p;
>  @@
>
> +(
>  *if@p (&x)
>   S1 else S2
> +|
> +*if@p (&x || ...)
> + S1 else S2
> +|
> +*if@p (&x && ...)
> + S1 else S2
> +)
>
>  @script:python depends on org@
>  p << r.p;


You would like to extend a check for an if statement.
I suggest to specify the corresponding SmPL disjunction like the following.

@r@
expression x;
statement S1,S2;
position p;
@@

*if@p ( \(&x \| &x || ... \| &x && ... \) )
 S1 else S2


How do you think about to use such a SmPL code variant instead?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [cocci] [PATCH] coccinelle: ifaddr: Find address test in more complex conditions

[Julia Lawall]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1402 bytes --]



On Sat, 4 Jun 2022, Markus Elfring wrote:

>
> > The test of an expression's address does not necessarily represent the
> > whole condition, it may only be a part of it.
> > This change aims at detecting an address test in more complex conditions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jérémy Lefaure <jeremy.lefaure@netatmo.com>
> > ---
> >  scripts/coccinelle/misc/ifaddr.cocci | 8 ++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/ifaddr.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/ifaddr.cocci
> > index fc92e8fcbfcb..387af44a1256 100644
> > --- a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/ifaddr.cocci
> > +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/ifaddr.cocci
> > @@ -18,8 +18,16 @@ statement S1,S2;
> >  position p;
> >  @@
> >
> > +(
> >  *if@p (&x)
> >   S1 else S2
> > +|
> > +*if@p (&x || ...)
> > + S1 else S2
> > +|
> > +*if@p (&x && ...)
> > + S1 else S2
> > +)
> >
> >  @script:python depends on org@
> >  p << r.p;
>
>
> You would like to extend a check for an if statement.
> I suggest to specify the corresponding SmPL disjunction like the following.
>
> @r@
> expression x;
> statement S1,S2;
> position p;
> @@
>
> *if@p ( \(&x \| &x || ... \| &x && ... \) )
>  S1 else S2
>
>
> How do you think about to use such a SmPL code variant instead?


I don't think that the &x case is needed.  There is an isomorphism for ||
... that makes it cover the case where the || is not there as well.

julia

Re: [cocci] coccinelle: ifaddr: Find address test in more complex conditions

[Markus Elfring]

>> *if@p ( \(&x \| &x || ... \| &x && ... \) )
>>  S1 else S2
>>
>>
>> How do you think about to use such a SmPL code variant instead?
>
> I don't think that the &x case is needed.  There is an isomorphism for ||
> ... that makes it cover the case where the || is not there as well.


Do you refer to an isomorphism which is built into the Coccinelle software
(instead of being explicitly specified in the file “standard.iso”)?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [cocci] coccinelle: ifaddr: Find address test in more complex conditions

[Julia Lawall]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 529 bytes --]



On Sat, 4 Jun 2022, Markus Elfring wrote:

> >> *if@p ( \(&x \| &x || ... \| &x && ... \) )
> >>  S1 else S2
> >>
> >>
> >> How do you think about to use such a SmPL code variant instead?
> >
> > I don't think that the &x case is needed.  There is an isomorphism for ||
> > ... that makes it cover the case where the || is not there as well.
>
>
> Do you refer to an isomorphism which is built into the Coccinelle software
> (instead of being explicitly specified in the file “standard.iso”)?

Yes, that is correct.

julia

Re: [cocci] [PATCH] coccinelle: ifaddr: Find address test in more complex conditions

[Jérémy LEFAURE]

> You would like to extend a check for an if statement.
> I suggest to specify the corresponding SmPL disjunction like the following.
>
> @r@
> expression x;
> statement S1,S2;
> position p;
> @@
>
> *if@p ( \(&x \| &x || ... \| &x && ... \) )
>  S1 else S2
>
>
> How do you think about to use such a SmPL code variant instead?

Thank you for your suggestion, it looks like a better solution.
I'll send a v2 with this suggestion (without the &x case).

Jérémy