Re: [cocci] Can we match a known macro by macro name instead of expanded function name?

[Tobias Deiminger <tobias.deiminger@posteo.de>]

Unintentionally removed the list from recipients, thus resending. Sorry 
for the noise.

Am 29.11.2025 18:29 schrieb Tobias Deiminger:
> Am 29.11.2025 17:36 schrieb Julia Lawall:
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2025, Tobias Deiminger wrote:
>> 
>>> Am 29.11.2025 16:59 schrieb Julia Lawall:
>>> > On Sat, 29 Nov 2025, Tobias Deiminger wrote:
>>> > [...]
>>> > There is no macro expansion in the semantic patch.
>>> 
>>> Sorry, that I don't understand. Here's the complete minimal example 
>>> as I
>>> understood from your earlier advice:
>>> 
>>>   // my.c
>>>   SYSCALL_DEFINE0(foo) { return 0; }
>>> 
>>>   // my.cocci
>>>   @r@
>>>   attribute a;
>>>   identifier fn;
>>>   type t;
>>>   @@
>>>   * t a fn(...) { ... }
>>> 
>>>   // standard.h
>>>   #define  asmlinkage
>>>   #define SYSCALL_DEFINE0(func) \
>>>       asmlinkage unsigned long __SYSCALL_DEFINE0 func(void)
>> 
>> There is no macro expansion in the semantic patch.  You have to write 
>> the
>> semantic patch to match the expanded function.
> 
> Yes, I believe that's exactly what I did:
> 
> 1. The semantic patch is "* t a fn(...) { ... }". It matches the
> expanded function, where return type = unsigned long, attribute =
> __SYSCALL_DEFINE0, fn = foo.
> 
>> Macro expansion only happens in the C code.
> 
> 2. The C code is 'SYSCALL_DEFINE0(foo) { return 0; }'. I assume this C
> code is expanded by spatch to the definition in standard.h to
> "unsigned long __SYSCALL_DEFINE0 foo(void)" before the semantic patch
> gets applied.
> 
> Somewhere either me or coccinelle is wrong. Very likely the former ;-)
> 
> Tobias