From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: elfring@users.sourceforge.net (SF Markus Elfring)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 07:20:11 +0200
Subject: [Cocci] Finding unstored return values with SmPL
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1507221943550.2405@hadrien>
References: <55A62135.90206@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1507150629540.2670@hadrien>
 <55AA3B1F.5020807@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1507181351130.2042@localhost6.localdomain6>
 <55ACDC1C.1040005@users.sourceforge.net>
 <55AFD615.3070905@users.sourceforge.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1507221943550.2405@hadrien>
Message-ID: <55B0798B.1010507@users.sourceforge.net>
To: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
List-Id: cocci@systeme.lip6.fr

> You can use arguments like --show-trying and --debug to see
> where it is getting stuck, if that is the case.

How do you think about to try another analysis out with one
of your test systems?

"source file"|duration|comment|function
udev-rules.c|234.2|EXN:Common.Timeout|add_rule
udev-builtin-usb_id.c|234.4|EXN:Common.Timeout|builtin_usb_id
udev-builtin-net_id.c|13.0||
udev-builtin-input_id.c|45.1||
udevadm-monitor.c|168.5||
udevadm-control.c|240.0|EXN:Common.Timeout|adm_control
collect/collect.c|27.1||
cdrom_id/cdrom_id.c|234.4|EXN:Common.Timeout|main
ata_id/ata_id.c|252.5|EXN:Common.Timeout|main


I extended the corresponding SmPL script also with the
following specifications.

@show_unstored_return_values@
binary operator bo;
expression express;
?
statement es, is;
?
|
  if (allocation(...) bo express) is else es;
|
?


But I got the impression that this pattern extension is not matched
in my use case.
How should I improve my approach here?

Regards,
Markus