Hi!
> Would it make sense and work to write a semantic patch rule like the
> following?
>
> @replacement@
> @@
> -f
> +g
> (L);
>
>
> Can the passed parameters be omitted from the desired adjustment by "the plus
> line"?
The whole rule that I'm working with is:
@@
expression list L;
expression C != {TINFO, TPASS};
@@
- tst_resm(C, L);
- tst_exit();
+ tst_brkm(C, NULL, L);
Which is used to replace two functions with one and shuffles the
arguments a bit.
--
Cyril Hrubis
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
