> 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.
It's a hack, but you can pass through python or ocaml.
@r@
type t;
@@
typedef struct {
...
} t ;
@script:python s@
t << r.t;
i;
@@
coccinelle.i = t
@@
tpye r.t;
identifier s.i;
@@
...
Now in the last rule, you have all the information you need. You might even
remove eg any trailing _t from t along the way.
julia
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
