On Sat, 10 Feb 2018, Robert Larice wrote:
> Julia Lawall <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Sat, 10 Feb 2018, Robert Larice wrote: > > > >> Dear People, > >> > >> I'm completely new here. > >> > >> Attached is a small piece of .c and a .cocci file. > >> There is a "return 41;" in both files, commented out. > >> If I uncomment this "return 41;" in both files then > >> spatch will not match the pieces any more. > >> > >> Could you please help me to undertand and circumvent this issue ? > > > > I have not noticed this problem before, but I suspect that it is due to > > the fact that Coccinelle is matching the control-flow path and not the > > abstract syntax tree. In a control-flow graph, nothing follows a return. > > > > julia > > Thank You, > I tried to sneak around the problem with a second "rule" which > translates "return 42" to "auxiliary(42)". > My intention was to first change the source in such a way > that the "control-flow" graph does not end at the "return", > and then hope that the second (accordingly modified) rule would > match. > This didn't work, I assume I would have to express the idea of > first applying the first rule > then to rebuild the control-flow graph > then try the second rule. > (and finally undo the changes of the first rule in a third rule) > I can not force "rebuild" without invoking spatch myself a second time. If you change all the returns to something else and then match your pattern, and then change them it should work. > > --- > I'm a bit of a maintainer for the "ngspice" project, which has a vast > amount of very old files, and lots of semi duplicated stuff often crying > for a thourough hair wash, > stumbled over this intresting tool, and am tying it for a certain > rewrite I'm currently busy with. OK,feel free to ask more questions if you run into further issues. julia _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
