> New version. I check for non-use of the return value of strlcpy and
> address some issues that affected the matching of the case where the first
> argument involves a pointer dereference.
I suggest to take another look at corresponding implementation details
of the shown SmPL script.
> \(strscpy\|strlcpy\)(e1.f, e2, i2)@p
Can the data access operator “->” (arrow) matter also here?
> @@
> identifier r.i1,r.i2;
> type T;
> @@
> struct i1 { ... T i1[i2]; ... }
Will an additional SmPL rule name be helpful for this part?
> @@
> (
> -x = strlcpy
> +stracpy
> (e1.f, e2
> - , i2
> )@p;
> ... when != x
>
> |
I wonder about the deletion of the assignment target.
Should the setting of such a variable be usually preserved?
Regards,
Markus
