[Cocci] Remove unnecessary null pointer checks?

Julia Lawall julia.lawall at lip6.fr
Mon Feb 24 12:22:04 CET 2014


On Mon, 24 Feb 2014, SF Markus Elfring wrote:

> > There is no need to put the ? else es.
>
> Thanks for your explanation.
>
> I get a "surprise" if I try out the following SmPL variant.
>
> @safety_check@
> identifier function, input;
> type data_type;
> position pos;
> statement is, es;
> @@
>  void function at pos(...,data_type input,...)
>  {
>   ...
> ( if (!input) return;
> | if (input) is else es
> )
>   ...
>  }
>
> @script:python collection depends on safety_check@
> typ << safety_check.data_type;
> fun << safety_check.function;
> point << safety_check.input;
> places << safety_check.pos;
> @@
> store_positions(fun, typ, point, places)
>
>
> Response:
> 875 883
> Fatal error: exception Failure("scriptmeta: parse error:
>  = File "list_input_parameter_validation3.cocci", line 43, column 20,  charpos = 875
>     around = 'function', whole content = fun << safety_check.function;
>
>
> Can such names be reused which are key words at other places?

Apparently there is a problem in this case.  I will make a note of it.  In
the meantime, just use another name.

julia


More information about the Cocci mailing list