On Thu, 25 Aug 2011, Michael Stefaniuc wrote: > Arie Middelkoop wrote: > >>> In SmPL pseudo > >>> (and invalid) code I'm looking for something that does: > >>> @@ > >>> macro interface; > >>> @@ > >>> - interface > >>> + struct > >>> > >>> Just using perl (interface is a very common word in the comments) or > >>> removing/modifying the define (it is used in macro expansion (API) as > >>> well in generated code from IDL) is very tedious and I wonder if there > >>> is a cleaner way to achieve it; preferably in coccinelle. > >> I'm not seeing anything very obvious. The problem is that the SmPL code > >> doesn't take into account the macro definition file. So it won't know > >> what to do with interface. > > > > What if you could define an additional set of keywords and for each keyword > > a mapping to a sequence of tokens? > > In that case, you can perform such substitutions before the actual parse > > process starts. This would work for your particular problem: but it's > > rather early in the entire process to be really useful. > > (not to mention that I'm not sure if it is possible to 'dynamically' extend > > the lexer) > It doesn't need to be dynamic. What I have done is to add in > parsing_c/lexer_c.mll in the keyword_table > "interface", (fun ii -> Tstruct ii); > There is already a section there for Windows extensions. > No clue yet if this is enough as I didn't have time to test it; I'll do > that tonight at home.
The problem is not the C lexer but the SmPL one. Perhaps it would be enough for you to make the analogous change there (parsing_cocci/lexer_cocci.mll). The "macro" that you propose is sort of like the typedef that exists already in SmPL. The problem though is that for typedef we know that the labelled thing should represent a type. But for macro it could be anything. julia _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] http://lists.diku.dk/mailman/listinfo/cocci (Web access from inside DIKUs LAN only)
