On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 10:08AM +0100, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > So there is no way to match one of these double const things.
>
> Is the situation different for the semantic patch language
> if multiple qualifiers would be syntactically required?
>
> Another source code example:
> static const struct data const* my_pointer;
That would still be just a duplicate, wouldn't it. To actually make
sense it would have to be:
static const struct data * const my_pointer;
That works I think (at least with spatch patched with the first patch
Julia sent in the thread that started this).
>
>
> > Telling the developer to remove the second const is probably
> > the reasonable solution.
>
> Would you like to support additional type qualifiers there?
My personal view, if gcc can parse&compile it, spatch should correctly parse
it. There seem to be some discrepancies currently.
Sören
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
