On Sat, 8 Aug 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > I have tried the following small SmPL script
> >
> > @show_designated_initialisers@
> > identifier allocation, element, structure_type, structure_var;
> > @@
> > <+...
> > *struct structure_type structure_var = { ..., .element = allocation(...),
> > ... };
> > ...+>
Why do you have <+... ...+> around the pattern?
julia
> >
> >
> > on this
> >
> >
> > char* get_default_message(short selection)
> > {
> > static char xyz[123];
> >
> > switch (selection)
> > {
> > case 1:
> > strcpy(xyz, "Test");
> > default:
> > strcpy(xyz, "working");
> > }
> > return xyz;
> > }
> >
> > static unsigned long my_counter = 0;
> >
> > static struct my_string
> > {
> > unsigned int length;
> > char* text;
> > } message = { .text = get_default_message(1), .length = 123 };
> >
> >
> > source code example.
> >
> >
> > elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor> spatch.opt -sp-file
> > show_designated_initialisers1.cocci designated_initialiser1.c
> > init_defs_builtins: /usr/local/lib/coccinelle/standard.h
> > HANDLING: designated_initialiser1.c
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately, I do not see a generated patch there.
> > How should I improve my approach for the expected analysis result?
>
> How is the status for the support of data processing for designated
> initialisers
> with the semantic patch language?
>
> Regards,
> Markus
> _______________________________________________
> Cocci mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
>
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
