[Cocci] Finding unstored return values with SmPL

[elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring)]

>>> @@
>>> type T;
>>> T x;
>>
>> Would the specification "type x" be also sufficient?
> 
> Not at all.  That would make x be a type.  You want it to be an 
> expression, of some type.

It seems that I do not understand this distinction at the moment.

I would interpret this part more in the way that a SmPL metavariable
is simply renamed from "T" to "x".


>>> identifier f;
>>> void v;
>>> @@
>>>
>>> (
>>> f(...)@v;
>>> |
>>> *f(...)@x;
>>> )
>>
>> Does the first pattern take precedence over the last one
> 
> Yes, always.

Thanks for your clarification.


I am still unfamiliar with the consequences from the use of 
variables like "v" and "x" when they are not position variables
as you suggest in your example script.

Regards,
Markus