On Thu, 2 Oct 2014, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> 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.
It is not actually necessary to remove and add back L. You could write:
- tst_resm
+ txt_brkm
(C,
+ NULL,
L);
- tst_exit();
However, it is useful to have the bug reports.
julia
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
