On Wed, Feb 04 2015, Cyril Hrubis <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi! >> > Would you like to be more explicit in the semantic patch language >> > around source code adjustments which should also affect >> > corresponding comments? >> >> It seems complicated, and people don't always follow the same comventions. >> >> Probably it is thinking that the code looks like this: >> >> /*some comment on b */ >> int b; > > That explains it. > >> I could change it so that this strategy is only followed if /*some comment >> on b */ starts at the beginning of the line. > > That sounds good. What would be the strategy for the other case then?
It seems to be a reasonable heuristic that a comment beginning on a line which also contains code is attached to that code, while a comment beginning on a line by itself is attached to the following code (whether that means one or more lines of code is of course impossible to guess). So, in the former case, if the code is simply removed, the comment should also vanish. But what if the semantic patch contains + code? Something like - int hash; + unsigned int hash; In that case, it's probably best to leave the comment. But one can probably always find examples where whatever coccinelle does, something else would have been better. For example, if the comment should stay but needs rewording, good luck teaching any computer program to do that. In short, nothing can save one from doing a manual review of the generated patch, especially when comments are involved. Rasmus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
