From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C52FC433DF for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 10:50:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from isis.lip6.fr (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F16820709 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 10:50:45 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9F16820709 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=inria.fr Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr Received: from systeme.lip6.fr (systeme.lip6.fr [132.227.104.7]) by isis.lip6.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 04IAofJa016079; Mon, 18 May 2020 12:50:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from systeme.lip6.fr (systeme.lip6.fr [127.0.0.1]) by systeme.lip6.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5F9D7559; Mon, 18 May 2020 12:50:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from isis.lip6.fr (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by systeme.lip6.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C99D3D0F for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 12:50:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by isis.lip6.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 04IAod15002110 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 12:50:39 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,407,1583190000"; d="scan'208";a="348920946" Received: from abo-173-121-68.mrs.modulonet.fr (HELO hadrien) ([85.68.121.173]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 May 2020 12:50:19 +0200 Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 12:50:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Julia Lawall X-X-Sender: jll@hadrien To: Markus Elfring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <4a677190-b494-138c-4782-eec033a77377@web.de> <0a93e321-42de-3534-9c4a-d67132a1289e@web.de> <8f3cbbd1-653e-ab2d-5a41-18eec00ae828@web.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, Sender e-mail whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Mon, 18 May 2020 12:50:41 +0200 (CEST) X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (isis.lip6.fr [132.227.60.2]); Mon, 18 May 2020 12:50:39 +0200 (CEST) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 132.227.60.2 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 132.227.60.2 Cc: Chuhong Yuan , cocci@systeme.lip6.fr Subject: Re: [Cocci] How to match function calls in macros? X-BeenThere: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr Errors-To: cocci-bounces@systeme.lip6.fr On Mon, 18 May 2020, Markus Elfring wrote: > >>> If the developer forgets the \ there would likely be a parsing problem. > >> > >> I find it helpful to clarify parsing challenges around such an use case. > >> It might occasionally be relevant if a line continuation indication > >> was accidentally forgotten or was intentionally omitted. > >> > >> * Source code review should point such questionable places out, shouldn't it? > >> > >> * How much does this implementation detail matter for the safe application > >> of the semantic patch language? > > > > This is not Coccinelle's problem. > > This software is also involved then. > > > > A developer can run a compiler to check for parsing errors. > > I imagine that a missing line continuation can be hard to detect > and report as a possible programming error because the corresponding > code parts can still be valid on their own according to special circumstances. If they are valid, then what is the problem. Neither a compiler nor Coccinelle can know what the developer intended. > Can the semantic patch language help to insist for a search that a bit > of source code belongs to the implementation of a function-like macro? That's what the search that was written does. The pattern that comes after #define has to be in the definition of the macro. Coccinelle never matches things in more than one top-level term in the C file. julia _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci