On Sun, 15 Feb 2015, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
> 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.
In the demos subdirectory there are two examples:
pythontococci.cocci
camltococci.cocci
They are very helpful for remembering the syntax.
julia_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
