From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>, cocci@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [cocci] Analysis challenges with SmPL for pass-through functions?
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 11:40:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c56923eb-529f-4b00-b355-ba74df02aee6@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AF63C923-8861-4FF0-A7CB-734FA309318D@inria.fr>
>>>> Will further clarifications become more interesting for corresponding case distinctions?
>>> There is no guarantee that two metavariables don't match the same thing.
>>
>> Some test cases seem to indicate that a source code search gets restricted to unique data
>> if only a single metavariable is affected.
I assume that the initially mentioned SmPL rule “display2” can influence development ideas
(for this discussion topic).
>> Are there further constraints to consider for the processing of data types and corresponding
>> contents of (meta-)variables?
>
> I have no idea what this means.
Variables have got some properties.
Including:
* Data type
* Value
> If a maetavariable is inherited into another rule it has to have one value.
The data determination is usually needed.
> Otherwise it needs one value per control flow path.
Would related options become relevant?
> But if thee are two occurrences of a metavariable in a pattern , they have to have the same value.
This aspect is influenced by the number of metavariable identifiers according to a type (or kind)
in special ways, isn't it?
Regards,
Markus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-21 9:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-19 14:00 [cocci] Analysis challenges with SmPL for pass-through functions? Markus Elfring
2025-10-19 14:10 ` Julia Lawall
2025-10-19 14:25 ` Markus Elfring
2025-10-19 14:30 ` Julia Lawall
2025-10-19 14:37 ` Markus Elfring
2025-10-19 14:40 ` Julia Lawall
2025-10-19 14:50 ` Markus Elfring
2025-10-21 6:16 ` Markus Elfring
2025-10-21 9:12 ` Julia Lawall
2025-10-21 9:40 ` Markus Elfring [this message]
2025-10-24 19:03 ` [cocci] Terminology evolution for SmPL? Markus Elfring
2025-10-22 9:20 ` [cocci] Analysis challenges with SmPL for pass-through functions? Markus Elfring
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c56923eb-529f-4b00-b355-ba74df02aee6@web.de \
--to=markus.elfring@web.de \
--cc=Julia.Lawall@inria.fr \
--cc=cocci@inria.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).