Hi Alex, On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:44:13AM +0200, Alex Susu wrote: > More exactly I used to search in the C code the following deconstructors:
Just to make sure I understand you correctly: you are happy with the current behaviour, except for the lack of function name support? > Given the above examples, I would like to have a few extensions to the CIL > deconstructors: > - specify names of functions - currently adding real function names to > deconstructors gives parse error Agreed, it would be sensible and consistent with matching parameter names. > - maybe specify partial names of formal arguments for functions, or maybe even > use some reg-expressions. Unless you have a compelling use case, I'd be much more reluctant to integrate this (my gut feeling is: very high complexity/benefit ratio). > As mentioned in cil.pdf, Section 6.2, the one responsible for > (de)constructors is > formatcil.ml (method doParse, etc). I did a strange hack in this direction, > but I'm > thinking to add these extensions within the formatcil.ml. I don't use deconstructors in my own code, but I'd be happy to integrate a patch adding support for names of functions. Do not hesitate if you stumble on some difficulty while you work on it. Best regards, -- Gabriel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb _______________________________________________ CIL-users mailing list CIL-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cil-users
