On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 06:40:22PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote: > > Sure, so if I have code like this: > > #define pte_alloc_one(mm, vmaddr) ((pte_t *) page_table_alloc(mm)) > > > > I want to have a rule that does: > > - #define pte_alloc_one(mm, vmaddr) ((pte_t *) page_table_alloc(mm)) > > + #define pte_alloc_one(mm) ((pte_t *) page_table_alloc(mm)) > > > > So far everything I tried only works for functions so I was wondering how > > one > > do this with macros. > > Maybe > > @r@ > position p; > identifier i,a,b; > @@ > > #define i(a,b)@p <+...b...+> > > @@ > position p != r.p; > identifier i,a,b; > expresssion e; > @@ > > - #define i(a,b)@p e > + #define i(a) e > > The rule r finds #defines that refer to the second argument, and records > their position in p, while the second rule finds all other #defines with > two arguments.
Thanks a lot, I will try these. > Of course, you would want to use a regular expression for the macro name, > or do something to avoid changing all two argument macros. > > Macros are often defined in header files, so you may want to use the > command line options --no-includes --include-headers. --no-includes means > ignore header files when they are included into .c files and > --include-headers means treat both .c an .h files. Otherwise, you only get > .c files. I am using --include-headers. I didn't get the --no-includes use with --include-headers though. What happens if I don't pass --no-includes? Do the header files included from C files also get matched then? Then in that case I shouldn't need to pass anything (neither --include-headers nor --no-includes) and all included headers from C files should also be matched/parsed/patched - since every header should atleast be included *somewhere* otherwise its existinence is pointless. Could you help me understand this better? Thanks a lot! - Joel _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
