On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.law...@lip6.fr> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > >> I have a series of changes, and I want to only make a subsequent > >> change if and only if at least one of a series of previous declared > >> rules were matched. I can do this by depends on foo1 || foo2 || foo3 > >> || foo4, etc however since I have a lot of rules I was hoping I could > >> condense these into one. What would be the best way to do that? > >> > >> This is just to reduce a long list of conjunctions to a much simpler set. > > > > Disjunctions, I guess? > > Heh yes sorry. > > > I guess you could make a rule that is guaranteed to match for some > > reason and put > > > > @combined depends on a || b || c || d || e@ > > identifier f; > > @@ > > > > f(...) > > > > Here I match any function call, because any file of interest probably > > contains at least one. But if possible it would be better to put a > > pattern that matches less often, because Coccinelle really will be doing > > the work of making these matches. > > I suspected this, I had used > > #include ... > > as I think most files has this but I was concerned over the impact as > you noted. A python way to add a virtual rule would have been another > option but it seems only iteration supports that. I don't think this would work. You can't add virtual rules on the fly. julia > > I think that the long list of ||s would be better. > > OK, I'll do that. > > Luis > _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
