Hi Julia,
On Wed, 2016-05-11 at 07:41:20 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 10 May 2016, Sören Brinkmann wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm trying to remove 'const' qualifiers from function arguments that are
> > passed by value.
> >
> > e.g. I want to convert:
> >
> > void foobar(const int bar, const int *baz);
> > to
> > void foobar(int bar, const int *baz);
> >
> > I came up with this semantic patch:
> > /* Remove const from arguments passed by value */
> > @ rule1 @
> > identifier fi, I;
> > type T;
> > @@
> > fi ( ...,
> > - const T
> > + T
> > I
> > ,...
> > )
> > { ... }
> >
> > That seems to work fine on function declarations, but does not cover
> > function prototypes. Extending the patch to function prototypes I ran
> > into some trouble. As complete separate patch, I evolved the above to
> > (just replacing the function body with a ';'):
> > /* Remove const from arguments passed by value */
> > @ rule1 @
> > identifier fi, I;
> > type T;
> > @@
> > fi ( ...,
> > - const T
> > + T
> > I
> > ,...
> > ) ;
> >
> > But that is not parsed by spatch, causing this error:
> > init_defs_builtins: /usr/local/lib/coccinelle/standard.h
> > minus: parse error:
> > File "const_proto.cocci", line 9, column 1, charpos = 115
> > around = 'I',
> > whole content = ' I'
> >
> > Also, using the first version of a patch on a c-file with matching function
> > declarations that also includes function prototypes, results in both,
> > declarations and prototypes, while using it on a header with prototypes
> > only doesn't result in any replacements.
> >
> > I attach the patches and some test files for reference.
> > const.cocci apparently correctly removes all const keywords from the
> > test.c file, but does not change the .h at all (which is correct, just
> > weird that it changes the prototype in the .c).
> >
> > The const_proto.cocci file causes the above-mentioned error.
> >
> > Does anybody know what I'm missing here?
>
> By default, when you change a function header, Coccinell changes the
> prototype accordingly. But to be able to do that it needs to have access
> to the prototype. So you may need to give an argument like --all-includes
> (include all the .h files mentioned in the .c file) or --recursive-incudes
> (include all the .h files recurively included by any .h file mentioned in
> the .c file). --recursive-includes at least may be slow, but things will
> be done in a consistent manner.
Interesting. I tried different variations of the include switches on the
real code base, but none resulted in the headers to be updated. Though,
with those switches I get 'different modification result for foo.h' warnings.
For the test files, including the header in the c file and running
spatch with --local-includes works as expected.
Guess I'll dig into the headers and check if there are any unusual
constructs causing the problem. Any hints would be appreciated :)
> I will check on why the expliciti prototype rule doesn't parse.
Thanks for looking into it.
Sören
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
