Re: [cocci] Checking evaluation of another SmPL script

On Sun, 24 May 2026, Markus Elfring wrote:

> > For the case of --no-loops, backward jumps are detected as loops for other pruposes.
>
> Which purposes do you imagine here?

Loops require the use of the CTL operator AW, not AU.

>
>
> > But they are maintained in the case of --no-loops.
>
> How does such “maintenance” look like?

The edge connecting the goto to the label is present.

>
> > I'm not sure what encoding one would want.
>
> I am curious how clarifications will evolve further.
>
>
> > Should a backward goto just exit the function?
>
> Will other development ideas become more reasonable?
>
>
> > Should it fall through to the next statement, as done for --no-gotos?
>
> I see a need that selected jumps would occasionally be skipped
> (or “ignored” for some data processing).
>
>
> >  --no-gotos is in general really nonsense.
>
> Interesting view …
>
>
> > --no-loops for for, while etc loops does consider a subset of meaningful paths.
> How will software design approaches evolve accordingly?

As I said, I don't know what is the best thing to do.  If you have an
actual proposal., propose it.  If you don't have a proposal, plase stop
the discussion, because nothing is going to change.

julia