From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:27:37 +0100
Subject: [Cocci] Release 1.0.3: Clarification around SmPL conjunctions
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1510301606020.2364@hadrien>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510262151580.2079@localhost6.localdomain6>
 <5631F344.9080804@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1510301405330.2364@hadrien>
 <56337A59.8030804@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1510301535230.2364@hadrien>
 <563383DF.9000509@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1510301606020.2364@hadrien>
Message-ID: <56338C69.3030401@users.sourceforge.net>
To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
List-Id: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr

> When you have ..., the thing after the ... has to come after (in the
> control-flow graph) the thing before the ...  So this would only match
> code that has a call to f followed by a call to g followed by a call to f
> followed by a call to g.  In particular, if the C code has no loops, then
> it must contain two calls to g.

I would find such a situation also occasionally interesting for specific
function implementations.


> If you look a demos/conjunction.c, both of the C functions contain only
> one call to g, so neither would match your pattern.

I find it strange that the function name "main" is repeated without
conditional compilation statements in this source code example.

Regards,
Markus