On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > Hi, > > > On Thursday 2010-03-25 02:00, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > > >I have a trivial issue trying to get started on spatch. > >For a start, the manpage states: > > > >EXAMPLES > > [...] > > > > ./spatch -sp_file foo.cocci foo.c -o /tmp/newfoo.c > > > >However, spatch (from cocc 0.2.2) does not seem to know any options. It > >does not support -h/--help either, so I can't tell if it's just the > >manpage being outdated. > > > >$ spatch -sp_file pfamily.smpl x.c -o new.c > >Unknown option -sp_file. > > > I guess I already figured it out: > > 02:08 borg:../coccinelle-0.2.2/x > ./spatch -sp_file parfamily x.c > init_defs_builtins: /usr/share/coccinelle/standard.h > HANDLING: x.c > No matches found for ->family .family > Skipping:x.c > 02:08 borg:../coccinelle-0.2.2/x > strip -s spatch > 02:08 borg:../coccinelle-0.2.2/x > ./spatch -sp_file parfamily x.c > Unknown option -sp_file. > > > But why spatch relies on a symbol table is a bit beyond me. > > Since many distros run strip just before packaging .rpm or similar, > there must be a way for spatch to work without the debugging symbol > table. (The ELF table is still available, readable with for example > `readelf -s spatch`.)
I found a few references saying that ocaml code compiled with -custom should not be stripped. One place was in the Fedora packaging guidelines, so I guess the people who make distributions know what to do. On the other hand, they said that stripping causes a no bytecode error, which is not what you are getting, so I'm not completely sure it is the same problem. julia _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] http://lists.diku.dk/mailman/listinfo/cocci (Web access from inside DIKUs LAN only)
