On Sun, 2015-02-15 at 06:32PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
>
> > > /// Convert typdefed structs to structs
> > >
> > > @ rule1 @
> > > identifier i;
> > > type t;
> > > @@
> > > -typedef struct i {
> > > +struct i {
> > > ...
> > > - }t;
> > > + };
> >
> > How do you think about a bit more fine-tuning for your SmPL approach?
> >
> > ...
> > }
> > -t
> > ;
> >
> > Is it sufficient to express the desired deletion at this place?
>
> It is possible, but perhaps not necessary. It would depend on whether
> there are any comments or attributes between the } and the ; that need to
> be preserved. Currently they will be removed.
>
> Another issue is that the typedef name might be (closer to) the one that
> ou want to preserve. And i is not even necessary, I believe. You could
> have another rule for the case where it is not present.
Sorry for bugging you again, but I tried to create a rule for cases that
don't name the struct. E.g.
typedef struct {
int bar;
} foo;
My problem seems to be, that a struct identifier is an identifier, while
the newly created type is a type. Hence, my naive approach:
@@
type t;
@@
-typedef struct {
+struct t {
...
}
- t
;
does not work. And thus far, I couldn't find a way to get around this. I
suspect there is some subtle trick to make it do what I want but I'm
just not seeing it.
Soren
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
