On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > > > Sorry, I'm not sure what the last bit is referring to. > > > Extend in what way? > > > > It would be nice if the same include parameters can be applied that I am > > used to > > with usual C compilers. > > > can't that be simply resolved by running spatch against the preprocessor > output rather than the C file ? Extending this would hardly ever cover every > possible behavior of existing compilers but I guess they all can dump > preprocessor output.
It depends what your goal is. If you are just looking for bugs then it might be ok, although I don't know whether spatch interprets the #line directives. If you want to do transformation, then you will be transforming the expanded code, which will give a result that is not very readable/maintainable. Also, if you want to anything that depends on the name of a macro, then running the preprocessor will cause that to diappear. Allowing more than one -I path is probably doable. It will be up to the user to figure out what those include paths should be, though. julia _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] http://lists.diku.dk/mailman/listinfo/cocci (Web access from inside DIKUs LAN only)
