On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 07:19AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > 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.
Awesome, that's it. I was pretty close. At some time I had pretty much
exactly that. I think all I missed was the 'coccinelle.' in the python
code.
Thanks,
Soren
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
