On Sat, 4 Jun 2022, Markus Elfring wrote: > > > The test of an expression's address does not necessarily represent the > > whole condition, it may only be a part of it. > > This change aims at detecting an address test in more complex conditions. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jérémy Lefaure <jeremy.lefaure@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > scripts/coccinelle/misc/ifaddr.cocci | 8 ++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/ifaddr.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/ifaddr.cocci > > index fc92e8fcbfcb..387af44a1256 100644 > > --- a/scripts/coccinelle/misc/ifaddr.cocci > > +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/misc/ifaddr.cocci > > @@ -18,8 +18,16 @@ statement S1,S2; > > position p; > > @@ > > > > +( > > *if@p (&x) > > S1 else S2 > > +| > > +*if@p (&x || ...) > > + S1 else S2 > > +| > > +*if@p (&x && ...) > > + S1 else S2 > > +) > > > > @script:python depends on org@ > > p << r.p; > > > You would like to extend a check for an if statement. > I suggest to specify the corresponding SmPL disjunction like the following. > > @r@ > expression x; > statement S1,S2; > position p; > @@ > > *if@p ( \(&x \| &x || ... \| &x && ... \) ) > S1 else S2 > > > How do you think about to use such a SmPL code variant instead? I don't think that the &x case is needed. There is an isomorphism for || ... that makes it cover the case where the || is not there as well. julia
