Re: [Cocci] How to match function calls in macros?

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1507 bytes --]



On Tue, 19 May 2020, Markus Elfring wrote:

> >> With which SmPL constructs should be ensured that a search pattern
> >> like “<+... f(...) ...+>” refers only to content from the same logical source line?
> >> https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/translation_phases#Phase_2
> >
> > Please stop asking the same question over and over.
>
> I hope that the expected and actually supported software functionality
> will become clearer.
>
>
> > In the context of a macro definition, <+... f(...) ...+> will only match
> > what is from the same logical source line.
>
> Does the functionality of the SmPL nest construct change according to
> previous source code?
>
> Are there more aspects to consider for the safe handling of physical source lines?
>
>
> > Because that is all that there is in a macro definition.
>
> We hope so also according to the initial clarification request for this issue.
>
>
> > If Coccinelle is working on a macro definition, it works only on that macro definition.
>
> Such an expectation can eventually be fine.
>
> Did I overlook any information for this detail in the software documentation so far?
> https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/7cf2c23e64066d5249a64a316cc5347831f7a63f/docs/manual/cocci_syntax.tex#L1736
>
>
> > If it is working on a function definition, it works only on that function definition.
>
> Does the position of the define directive influence this view?

I believe that the #defines inside of other top-level definitions are
ignored.

julia

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 136 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci