On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:38 PM Julia Lawall <[email protected]> wrote: > It does look strange. Maybe you can avoid removing and reconstructing the > string. For example, if you rewrite rule1 as: > > @rule1@ > expression x; > expression list y; > @@ > -DBG_PRINTF > +NV_PRINTF > ( > - x, > y); > > then the code generated by rule1 is OK. I haven't checked whether this > can be done in the whole semantic patch, though.
That made a huge difference, thanks. I still need to keep the Python code that merges the string into one line, but that could be just for my own code vs Coccinelle's parser. _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
