Re: [cocci] Can we match a known macro by macro name instead of expanded function name?

On Sat, 29 Nov 2025, Tobias Deiminger wrote:

> Am 29.11.2025 14:51 schrieb Julia Lawall:
> > On Sat, 29 Nov 2025, Tobias Deiminger wrote:
> >  [...]
> > The return type for the function is required in this case:
> >
> > @r@
> > attribute a;
> > identifier fn;
> > types t;
> > @@
> >
> > * t a fn(...) { ... }
>
> @Julia
> Thanks, almost there...
>
> The rule with return type you suggested works when I put the expanded form
> directly in my.c
>
>   asmlinkage unsigned long __SYSCALL_DEFINE0 mysyscall(void) { return 0; }
>
> *and* additionally add '#define __SYSCALL_DEFINE0 MACROANNOTATION' to
> standard.h. Without MACROANNOTATION I would get semantic error.
>
> But if I put the macro form to my.c (which is my original use case)
>
>   SYSCALL_DEFINE0(mysyscall) { return 0; }
>
> and add either only this
>
>   #define SYSCALL_DEFINE0(func) \
>         asmlinkage unsigned long __SYSCALL_DEFINE0 func(void)
>
> , or additionally the MACROANNOTATION hint to standard.h, I always get parse
> errors, even with return type. Any ideas what's going on?

There is no macro expansion in the semantic patch.

julia

>
>
> @Markus
> > You might point remaining improvement possibilities out for this evolving
> > software.
>
> Thanks also for your pointers. I've started learning about Coccinelle
> yesterday evening and think I'm not in a position to make improvement
> suggestions :D What Julia suggested would suite my case, once it works.
>
> Tobias
>