> The problem is that the scripting language environment is separate from the > environment of Coccinelle itself. So there is no easy way to get the > right values into the right variables.
I can also understand corresponding software development challennges to some degree. > Coccinelle doesn't know anything about the variables of the ocaml or python > scripts. How do you think about possibilities to extend its knowledge? Can an improved software design help to achieve the needed data exchange? >> I propose to reactivate the support for the SmPL rules "initialize" and >> "finalize" >> for all uses cases without unwanted software limitations. > > There is no way that Coccinelle can tell what is a "use case with an > unwanted software limitation. Can the exclusion of these rules be seen as a temporary software restriction when the parameter "--jobs" to the program "spatch"? > Coccinelle doesn't know what the scripting code does. But you have still got control on the data which are transferred between the involved subprocesses. > I would prefer not to promise a behavior that is not implemented. I hope that corresponding technical concerns can be improved. > As I said before, if an unshared initialize and finalize are acceptable to > you, > then just use the preexisting parallelism solution, which is still supported. I am using this approach with a make script for a while. How do you think about variants for these actions at the "unshared" stage and the task/subprocess level? Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
