On Thu, 2016-05-12 at 09:06:45 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > @removal@ > > > identifier F, I; > > > type T; > > > @@ > > > F(..., > > > - const > > > T I, > > > ... > > > ); > > Oops, now I see why this doesn't parse. When you make a rule for a > prototype, you need to specify the return type (which could be just T1). > Otherwise, the parser can't tell the difference between this and a > function call.
You're right that does it. Looks to me then that the grammar documentation should not indicate the fn_ctype as optional for function prototypes (http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/docs/main_grammar006.html)? Thanks, Sören _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
