From: Tobias Deiminger <tobias.deiminger@posteo.de>
To: cocci@inria.fr
Subject: [cocci] Can we match a known macro by macro name instead of expanded function name?
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2025 10:38:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4f6e259891de0666aa1fa10b810a5dd3@posteo.de> (raw)
Hi,
my newbie assumption was we could match the following by macro name
// my.c
SYSCALL_DEFINE0(foo_bar) { return; }
using this rules
// my.cocci
@r@
identifier fn =~ "SYSCALL_DEFINE[0-6]+";
position p;
@@
fn@p(...) {...}
@script:python@
fn << r.fn;
p << r.p;
@@
print(f"match: {fn} at line {p[0].current_element_line}")
Turns out, SYSCALL_DEFINE0 is a "known macro" from
/usr/lib/coccinelle/standard.h. In this case coccinelle seems to match
an identifier on the expanded function name, not the macro name. I.e.,
this would work:
identifier fn =~ "foo.*";
But I really want to search all syscalls by the conventional macro
names, i.e. search for SYSCALL_DEFINE[0-6]+. How to do that?
Tobias
next reply other threads:[~2025-11-29 10:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-29 10:38 Tobias Deiminger [this message]
2025-11-29 10:56 ` [cocci] Can we match a known macro by macro name instead of expanded function name? Julia Lawall
2025-11-29 13:15 ` Tobias Deiminger
2025-11-29 13:32 ` Markus Elfring
2025-11-29 13:51 ` Julia Lawall
2025-11-29 14:51 ` Markus Elfring
2025-11-29 15:00 ` Julia Lawall
2025-11-29 15:10 ` [cocci] Questionable macro expansions Markus Elfring
2025-11-29 15:55 ` [cocci] Can we match a known macro by macro name instead of expanded function name? Tobias Deiminger
2025-11-29 15:59 ` Julia Lawall
[not found] ` <67d1e00d2e22a4655cb10ec55d1a99db@posteo.de>
[not found] ` <83c8a7aa-9b98-8ac1-d563-e8fe2588f9a@inria.fr>
[not found] ` <fd7307f8024706d4bd128d0b7f43bb96@posteo.de>
2025-11-29 17:33 ` Tobias Deiminger
2025-11-29 17:38 ` Markus Elfring
2025-11-29 17:59 ` Julia Lawall
2025-11-29 18:28 ` Markus Elfring
2025-11-29 18:41 ` Julia Lawall
2025-11-29 19:00 ` Markus Elfring
2025-11-29 20:06 ` Tobias Deiminger
2025-11-29 20:10 ` Julia Lawall
2025-11-30 8:44 ` [cocci] Clarification for parsing capabilities? Markus Elfring
2025-11-30 8:05 ` [cocci] Can we match a known macro by macro name instead of expanded function name? Markus Elfring
2025-11-30 19:02 ` Tobias Deiminger
2025-12-01 8:32 ` Tobias Deiminger
2025-12-01 14:00 ` Markus Elfring
2025-12-01 9:42 ` Markus Elfring
2025-12-04 8:50 ` [cocci] Searching for system call implementations? Markus Elfring
2025-11-29 16:28 ` [cocci] Can we match a known macro by macro name instead of expanded function name? Markus Elfring
2025-12-02 9:45 ` [cocci] Searching for system call implementations with SmPL? 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=4f6e259891de0666aa1fa10b810a5dd3@posteo.de \
--to=tobias.deiminger@posteo.de \
--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