On 07/07/2015 08:51 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2015, Junghak Sung wrote:
First of all, Thank you for your quick response.
But, I'm still in trouble, because your cocci file also doesn't work with this
error.
Fatal error: exception Failure("xxx.c: 112: More than one variable in the
declaration, and so it cannot be transformed. Check that there is no
transformation on the type or the ;")
I think Peter took care of this. Please check that you have the latest
version.
As Peter's comment, I installed the latest version and tried again.
But, got a same result with this message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
let's go
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
rule starting on line 3 =
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
dependencies for rule rule starting on line 3 satisfied:
binding in = []
binding relevant in = []
(ONCE) ./t.c: 28: More than one variable in the declaration, and so it
cannot be transformed. Check that there is no transformation on the type or
the ;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finished
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Check duplication for 1 files
% spatch --version
spatch version 1.0.1 without Python support and with Str regexp support
Moreover, in many case of my real code, the second variable is treated with
different way.
What do you mean exactly by "different way"? It may indeed turn out that
the current state of Coccinelle can't help you here. But still try with
the latest version.
"different way" means that the first variable is used by foo(), but the
second is for other function foo2().
It's unfortunate that Coccinelle can not support this case.
I think Coccinelle would be very flexible and powerful tool,
and I hope that upcoming version can treat this case.
Thanks & Regards,
Junghak
julia
struct type_b *foo(void);
struct type_b *foo2(void);
int some_function(...)
{
-struct type_a *v1, *v2;
+struct type_b *v1, *v2;
...
v1 = foo();
v2 = foo2();
...
}
Does NOT coccinelle support this case?
If not, I'd be better to find out other way or do it manually.
Thank you & regards,
Junghak
On 07/07/2015 05:49 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jul 2015, Junghak Sung wrote:
Hi~
I'm a newbie for coccinelle.
I would like to make a cocci file to patch like :
struct type_b *foo(void);
int some_function(...)
{
-struct type_a *v1, *v2;
+struct type_b *v1, *v2;
...
v1 = foo();
v2 = foo();
...
}
Return value of foo() was changed from struct type_a to struct type_b.
So, I want to find out the locations where a function use it in and modify
the
type of local variables.
If the number of local variable is just one, this cocci could make the
patch
well.
@@
identifier i;
@@
{
...
-struct type_a *i;
+struct type_b *i;
...
i = foo();
...
}
But, assuming that the number of local variables is two or more, I have
failed
again and again.
How can I make cocci file?
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Could you try the following?
Coccinelle only allows specifying transformations on variable declarations
one at a time. But if all declarations are treated in the same way, this
may be OK. On the other hand, if there is a mixture of pointers and
nonpointers, this will fail. Such cases are not supported.
@@
type T1;
identifier i,i1;
@@
struct
- type_a // only change the type name
+ type_b
*i;
<... when exists // there may not be an i =... on every control flow
path
T1 i1; // allow other type_a declarations
...>
i = foo();
julia
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
