On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Markus Elfring wrote: > >> If you would insist on the specification of such an assignment exclusion > >> for a SmPL ellipsis: > >> Can we agree on a correct order? > > > > I don't get your point. > > I propose to take another closer look at a bit of SmPL code. > > > > There is no correct order. > > I have got an other software development view here. > > > > Each order expresses something different. > > I agree to this information. > > > > The order that is currently in the semantic patch is the one > > that is more likely in practice. > > Please check once more. > > … > +@search exists@ > +local idexpression id; > +expression x,e,e1; > +position p1,p2; > … > +@@ > + > +id = of_find_device_by_node@p1(x) > +... when != e = id > … > > Or: > > … > + ... when != id = e > … > > > Which SmPL specification will achieve the desired software behaviour? The desired behavior is to check whether the allocated value is saved in some other variable (typically a structure field) and thus it doesn't need to be freed just because the original local variable goes out of scope at the end of the function. when != e = id achieves this behavior. julia
